Sounds like he may have done something to threaten protesters and that's why they were chasing him away. He sounds like an outside agitator that wanted to show up to incite violence.packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Maybe he did something to the person and that's why the person was chasing him? Guess we'll never hear that guys side of the story since the kid shot him in the head before he went and shot two other people.
I'm sure he's a good kid though.
Should be a lesson to dumbasses about chasing good kids with guns. And dumbasses trying to kill good kids with guns by hitting them in the head with a skate board. Mess with the bull. Get the horns.
George Floyd
125,496 Views |
1023 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by SupplyChainPack
IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
Doesn't really matter what happened before. He was chasing the guy with the gun. He has no claim of self defense chasing the guy with the gun across a parking lot.
statefan91 said:Sounds like he may have done something to threaten protesters and that's why they were chasing him away. He sounds like an outside agitator that wanted to show up to incite violence.packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Maybe he did something to the person and that's why the person was chasing him? Guess we'll never hear that guys side of the story since the kid shot him in the head before he went and shot two other people.
I'm sure he's a good kid though.
Should be a lesson to dumbasses about chasing good kids with guns. And dumbasses trying to kill good kids with guns by hitting them in the head with a skate board. Mess with the bull. Get the horns.
You probably thought the same about Nicholas Sandmann.
You're wrong there. How it all started matters a lot here. If he was in a location he has no reason to be at, in defiance of curfew, and provoked the initial encounter, then being chased won't meet the standard of self defense. Again, Wisconsin is not a stand you're ground state.packgrad said:IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
Doesn't really matter what happened before. He was chasing the guy with the gun. He has no claim of self defense chasing the guy with the gun across a parking lot.
He is supposed to immediately drop the gun and allow himself to be pummeled by the antagonists... then after he has been already knocked unconscious he should be happy for the opportunity to be "posed up" for various dropkicks, roundhouses and all the such. Then when they are finally done with him they can do the "Weekend at Bernie's" photo op with his fist raised...
After that he'd be safe.
God forbid he help a friend of his defend their property...
After that he'd be safe.
God forbid he help a friend of his defend their property...
Yep. Just like the poor woman (who somehow happened to be white) trying to eat outside at a restaurant in DC with her friend the other evening... or the other young couple (yes, they happened to be white also) doing the same thing eating lunch together in broad daylight?statefan91 said:Sounds like he may have done something to threaten protesters and that's why they were chasing him away. He sounds like an outside agitator that wanted to show up to incite violence.packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Maybe he did something to the person and that's why the person was chasing him? Guess we'll never hear that guys side of the story since the kid shot him in the head before he went and shot two other people.
I'm sure he's a good kid though.
Should be a lesson to dumbasses about chasing good kids with guns. And dumbasses trying to kill good kids with guns by hitting them in the head with a skate board. Mess with the bull. Get the horns.
Gasp. By a maskless "Peaceful Protestor" nonetheless...
IseWolf22 said:You're wrong there. How it all started matters a lot here. If he was in a location he has no reason to be at, in defiance of curfew, and provoked the initial encounter, then being chased won't meet the standard of self defense. Again, Wisconsin is not a stand you're ground state.packgrad said:IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
Doesn't really matter what happened before. He was chasing the guy with the gun. He has no claim of self defense chasing the guy with the gun across a parking lot.
I disagree.
"Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to their person.
Importantly, some states impose a duty to retreat from a conflict, but Wisconsin is not among them. However, Wisconsin does allow juries to consider whether a defendant could have retreated in determining whether the use of deadly force was "necessary.""
Doesn't seem hard to make the argument that death or great bodily harm was coming from someone chasing a guy with a gun. Nor is it difficult to show that he tried to retreat.
You guys have spent the last page debating about if the kid that shot the two guys is self defense of not.....
The truth of the matter is that if you don't have mobs of people trying to burn down and destroy a town, then you don't have the kid with the gun and everyone is still alive.
Something like this was bound to happen and its gonna keep on happening. The government in these cities and states has abdicated their authority and have decided to allow things like this to happen instead of enforcing the laws and protecting the citizens, business owners, and property owners in those cities
Good for the kid for being willing to protect the law abiding citizens of that town when their own local government didnt
The truth of the matter is that if you don't have mobs of people trying to burn down and destroy a town, then you don't have the kid with the gun and everyone is still alive.
Something like this was bound to happen and its gonna keep on happening. The government in these cities and states has abdicated their authority and have decided to allow things like this to happen instead of enforcing the laws and protecting the citizens, business owners, and property owners in those cities
Good for the kid for being willing to protect the law abiding citizens of that town when their own local government didnt
cowboypack02 said:
You guys have spent the last page debating about if the kid that shot the two guys is self defense of not.....
The truth of the matter is that if you don't have mobs of people trying to burn down and destroy a town, then you don't have the kid with the gun and everyone is still alive.
Something like this was bound to happen and its gonna keep on happening. The government in these cities and states has abdicated their authority and have decided to allow things like this to happen instead of enforcing the laws and protecting the citizens, business owners, and property owners in those cities
Good for the kid for being willing to protect the law abiding citizens of that town when their own local government didnt
Good for the kid?
He ruined his life and multiple others, and for what? What was gained?
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
51,540
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
Oh, btw, the NBA is back on again. Lol. Flakes.
Yeah I didn't really get that strike. It was only worth 2 days of sitting out? Games resume tomorrow.packgrad said:
Oh, btw, the NBA is back on again. Lol. Flakes.
My entire point is that we don't know how the conflict started and whether it was justified or not is dependent on information that no one has right now. Nothing can be determined for sure one way or the other at the current time.packgrad said:IseWolf22 said:You're wrong there. How it all started matters a lot here. If he was in a location he has no reason to be at, in defiance of curfew, and provoked the initial encounter, then being chased won't meet the standard of self defense. Again, Wisconsin is not a stand you're ground state.packgrad said:IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
Doesn't really matter what happened before. He was chasing the guy with the gun. He has no claim of self defense chasing the guy with the gun across a parking lot.
I disagree.
"Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to their person.
Importantly, some states impose a duty to retreat from a conflict, but Wisconsin is not among them. However, Wisconsin does allow juries to consider whether a defendant could have retreated in determining whether the use of deadly force was "necessary.""
Doesn't seem hard to make the argument that death or great bodily harm was coming from someone chasing a guy with a gun. Nor is it difficult to show that he tried to retreat.
Purely hypothetically, you can't punch someone in the face or otherwise instigate a confrontation, run away then shoot them when they pursue. The second shooting is entirely dependent on the first. If the first was justified self defense, then the second one was as well, that one is pretty obvious from the videos and reports.
I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
51,540
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I agree, the guy kneeling on George Floyd for 8 minutes. Charge him with murder.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But this situation? What is a cop supposed to do these days? Wait until they get shot?
This guy clearly didn't give a **** about them, had an outstanding warrant, was resisting arrest, and could have been YOLO. As a cop, it reaches a point where you have to make sure you survive.
IseWolf22 said:My entire point is that we don't know how the conflict started and whether it was justified or not is dependent on information that no one has right now. Nothing can be determined for sure one way or the other at the current time.packgrad said:IseWolf22 said:You're wrong there. How it all started matters a lot here. If he was in a location he has no reason to be at, in defiance of curfew, and provoked the initial encounter, then being chased won't meet the standard of self defense. Again, Wisconsin is not a stand you're ground state.packgrad said:IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
Doesn't really matter what happened before. He was chasing the guy with the gun. He has no claim of self defense chasing the guy with the gun across a parking lot.
I disagree.
"Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to their person.
Importantly, some states impose a duty to retreat from a conflict, but Wisconsin is not among them. However, Wisconsin does allow juries to consider whether a defendant could have retreated in determining whether the use of deadly force was "necessary.""
Doesn't seem hard to make the argument that death or great bodily harm was coming from someone chasing a guy with a gun. Nor is it difficult to show that he tried to retreat.
Purely hypothetically, you can't punch someone in the face or otherwise instigate a confrontation, run away then shoot them when they pursue. The second shooting is entirely dependent on the first. If the first was justified self defense, then the second one was as well, that one is pretty obvious from the videos and reports.
Absolutely. There certainly could have been a scenario where he created the situation where it wasn't self defense. We definitely know since he's a white male teenager that the media will certainly give his side a fair shake.
From the evidence we have right now though, it's clearly self defense.
I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
51,540
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I'd much rather he have not shot 7 times too, but I've never been in that situation and behind a gun with my life on the line so I don't know what I'd do.IseWolf22 said:I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
I'd bet that cop right now is probably saying he wishes he could have handled even that part differently, but for me, this is why these types of police deals won't go away. We've made it a point to where the cops basically need to ask for permission to protect themselves, and that's a dangerous situation.
There is a human element here and in these situations everything won't be handled 100 percent the right way all the time.
If you think its bad today, had they shot him before he had gone into their car, half the country would be on fire today. As for hitting him in the leg, that seems like a rather large ask with that much adrenaline in the situation. Sure, I would love to think cops could be trained to pull that off, but as I said, in a fight or flight situation, Im not taking where I shoot into consideration. My only objective would be to subdue the other person.IseWolf22 said:I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
All this is hindsight of course. I think we would all logically like it to go down like you said. I just dont think its realistic.
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
51,540
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Do we know how many people are arrested, pulled over, charged with warrants, etc... daily? Thousands and thousands. This isn't the norm, doesn't make it right, but damn, we are choosing to ignore compliance in all of this and side with felons over policemen and I just don't get that.
I know one thing, my son won't be a cop, that's for damn sure.
I know one thing, my son won't be a cop, that's for damn sure.
Yes...likewise, if 17 yo kid who had no business taking a gun to a cauldron of anger hadn't been there, or hadn't been carrying a gun, and had allowed the authorities to do their job (for good or bad), he wouldn't have ruined his own life and killed a couple of folks.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
51,540
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
But it's not a video game where you get a do-over. It's real life.FlossyDFlynt said:If you think its bad today, had they shot him before he had gone into their car, half the country would be on fire today. As for hitting him in the leg, that seems like a rather large ask with that much adrenaline in the situation. Sure, I would love to think cops could be trained to pull that off, but as I said, in a fight or flight situation, Im not taking where I shoot into consideration. My only objective would be to subdue the other person.IseWolf22 said:I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
All this is hindsight of course. I think we would all logically like it to go down like you said. I just dont think its realistic.
.IseWolf22 said:I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
The police apprehend knife suspects everyday without lethal force. That's a mighty broad brush. Also, police aren't trained to shoot someone in the leg just to wound them. Respectfully, have you ever shot a pistol before? We don't want our LEOs aiming for arms and legs on moving targets.
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
51,540
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
In my reading up on taht 17 year old, he drove a town he worked in, 30 minutes from his home, to help protect business from rioters and looters (no clue why those things are happening, but okay). There are photos of him cleaning grafitti off those businesses.Packchem91 said:Yes...likewise, if 17 yo kid who had no business taking a gun to a cauldron of anger hadn't been there, or hadn't been carrying a gun, and had allowed the authorities to do their job (for good or bad), he wouldn't have ruined his own life and killed a couple of folks.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
Honestly, I'd probably be proud of my 17 year old son for doing those things above, if true.
It's sad this kid may have ruined his own life because looters chose to chase after him and he shot them.
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
51,540
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
They already had this guy on the ground once ,and he got up. Now it's shown he's in possession of a knife.packgrad said:.IseWolf22 said:I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
The police apprehend knife suspects everyday without lethal force. That's a mighty broad brush. Also, police aren't trained to shoot someone in the leg just to wound them. Respectfully, have you ever shot a pistol before? We don't want our LEOs aiming for arms and legs on moving targets.
I think its more of "mob mentality". Its one reason I wouldn't show up near one of these events for anything, even if I supported the cause. Call me chicken, ok. But people act the fool in big loud crowds -- anyone who has been to Hillsborough Street after big wins has seen how it can get bad quickly.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
So I'd guess none of those fools would chase a man with a gun in every day life....but get into all that adrenaline, and anything can happen.
I think this happens with police too....they get into a scuffle, the adrenaline is flowing, anger sets in, the guy is still giving them the business, or perhaps potentially reaching a weapon. Maybe you act a little differently than you would if the scuffle had not occurred, etc.....
Dear lord.James Henderson said:In my reading up on taht 17 year old, he drove a town he worked in, 30 minutes from his home, to help protect business from rioters and looters (no clue why those things are happening, but okay). There are photos of him cleaning grafitti off those businesses.Packchem91 said:Yes...likewise, if 17 yo kid who had no business taking a gun to a cauldron of anger hadn't been there, or hadn't been carrying a gun, and had allowed the authorities to do their job (for good or bad), he wouldn't have ruined his own life and killed a couple of folks.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
Honestly, I'd probably be proud of my 17 year old son for doing those things above, if true.
It's sad this kid may have ruined his own life because looters chose to chase after him and he shot them.
Hey...you want to send your kid into that type of feeding frenzy, that's your business, but if you want him to clean up graffiti (noble), tell him to wait til things have calmed down. Otherwise, thats very stupid, dangerous advice you'd be giving him.
And if you armed him, as a kid, to take a rifle into that type of frenzy, than you would deserve blame that your son ruined his life and killed a couple of other idiots.
All law enforcement agencies should be required by law to have 1) dash cams, 2) body cams, and 3) a comprehensive policy that at a minimum meets the state laws regarding the release of any police video at the appropriate time ( if allowed by that law).
More rural law enforcement certainly struggle with finances, but if the Feds can give every tax paying citizen a lump of money to assist with the financial struggles brought on by the Covid, they can certainly go further in debt trying to give law enforcement the tools/cameras / accompanying software, etc. to help make any and all interactions with citizens as easily as possible when you have certain events occur that can sometimes be hard to explain.
The town where I serve on the town council has all of our police officers in the field with a body camera and all vehicles have had dash cams for many, many years.
Give law enforcement the tools to be as helpful as possible to tell all sides of the story. Put that in your next financial stimulus bill Congress.
More rural law enforcement certainly struggle with finances, but if the Feds can give every tax paying citizen a lump of money to assist with the financial struggles brought on by the Covid, they can certainly go further in debt trying to give law enforcement the tools/cameras / accompanying software, etc. to help make any and all interactions with citizens as easily as possible when you have certain events occur that can sometimes be hard to explain.
The town where I serve on the town council has all of our police officers in the field with a body camera and all vehicles have had dash cams for many, many years.
Give law enforcement the tools to be as helpful as possible to tell all sides of the story. Put that in your next financial stimulus bill Congress.
2 things...
1. Cop kneeling on Floyd didn't kill him. That narrative is done. They didn't murder anyone. He OD'd on Fentanyl.
2. When the conscious decision is made to fire a weapon, cops intent is to eliminate the threat. Period. If that means fire 3 times or fire 7 times, they're shooting to eliminate the threat. If you're a cop, and you think the perp is going for a weapon, and you think shooting him in the leg stops that threat...well...good luck with that.
1. Cop kneeling on Floyd didn't kill him. That narrative is done. They didn't murder anyone. He OD'd on Fentanyl.
2. When the conscious decision is made to fire a weapon, cops intent is to eliminate the threat. Period. If that means fire 3 times or fire 7 times, they're shooting to eliminate the threat. If you're a cop, and you think the perp is going for a weapon, and you think shooting him in the leg stops that threat...well...good luck with that.
^ there is some truth there. Once you make the decision to shoot, you should never get shot in return because you left some ammo in your magazine. You're supposed to unload. So all the complaining about excessive number of shots...not just in this situation but most times when cops shoot somebody and they unload on them, that's really not a valid criticism. That's what they are taught.
Debating whether shots should have been fired in the first place is perfectly valid, but debating on the number of shots fired never is valid. You unload until they don't move. And if you're in the process of squeezing the trigger as many times as you can and somewhere in the middle of that they stop moving and you still pop them a couple of more before you realize that, too bad.
But again, complaining about whether the decision should have been made to shoot in the first place, no problem with that at all. That can be debated. Any time it is, however, there has to be a lot of attention given to what the cop thought was happening right there in the moment, versus some small snippet of a video or something taken or heard from a vantage point that was not ideal. We don't know what the cop saw or thought they saw.
What looks awful from a video taken 50 feet away might look totally different if you're standing five feet from the suspect.
Debating whether shots should have been fired in the first place is perfectly valid, but debating on the number of shots fired never is valid. You unload until they don't move. And if you're in the process of squeezing the trigger as many times as you can and somewhere in the middle of that they stop moving and you still pop them a couple of more before you realize that, too bad.
But again, complaining about whether the decision should have been made to shoot in the first place, no problem with that at all. That can be debated. Any time it is, however, there has to be a lot of attention given to what the cop thought was happening right there in the moment, versus some small snippet of a video or something taken or heard from a vantage point that was not ideal. We don't know what the cop saw or thought they saw.
What looks awful from a video taken 50 feet away might look totally different if you're standing five feet from the suspect.
Yes, I've shot pistols and other rifles/shotguns on many occasions, even some automatic weapons at gun ranges in GA. Not often though, and I don't own a weapon (wife absolutely refuses to consider it).packgrad said:.IseWolf22 said:I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
The police apprehend knife suspects everyday without lethal force. That's a mighty broad brush. Also, police aren't trained to shoot someone in the leg just to wound them. Respectfully, have you ever shot a pistol before? We don't want our LEOs aiming for arms and legs on moving targets.
And yes, I'm aware most police are trained to only shoot to kill. David Grossman the police trainer of 'killology' has been in the news frequently the past few years.
If Blake was advancing toward the officers with the knife I wouldn't have any complaints. But the guy was moving away, not very quickly, and the range was close.
I'm not gonna lie, this is a harder one. There is a reason I had not brought it up until Jame did.
If you are talking about initial media reactions....sure. You won't ever see me defending CNN and their ilk. But legally speaking that's completely false. It's really, really hard for an officer to be prosecuted, criminally or civilly for misconduct.James Henderson said:I'd much rather he have not shot 7 times too, but I've never been in that situation and behind a gun with my life on the line so I don't know what I'd do.IseWolf22 said:I haven't weighed in at all regarding Blake, because I did want to see more regarding why he was there and what was actually in his car. They said they tased him and it didnt work? They all carry tasers right? I havent seen many people take multiple tasers and just get up and stroll to their car, but I'll accept that wasn't working in this case. Somehow other countries with a lot more knife crime than us still manage to apprehend suspects without lethal force.FlossyDFlynt said:I think James nailed it.James Henderson said:My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.IseWolf22 said:Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?James Henderson said:You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.
Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.
If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.
I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.
Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.
He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.
It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?
I understand the outrage over George Floyd. This one, while still awful, I am having a harder time understanding. They get called about him, discover he had an active warrant, tried to subdue him with non lethal force, he ignores their demands when guns are drawn to grab some unknown object out of his car. If I am a cop at that point, its fight or flight.
I saw a picture last night where a WNBA team had his name across their T-Shirts, despite the fact he has a history of sexual assault. Guess the #MeToo movement is over
But let's just say the officer had valid reason to use his weapon. If the officer felt lethal force was justified, I would have rather he shot Blake before he was in his car. Maybe a round to the leg while he was walking away would have prevented 7 shots to the back at close range.
And James, "B won't happen without A" is an unreasonable standard that can justify pretty much anything
I'd bet that cop right now is probably saying he wishes he could have handled even that part differently, but for me, this is why these types of police deals won't go away. We've made it a point to where the cops basically need to ask for permission to protect themselves, and that's a dangerous situation.
There is a human element here and in these situations everything won't be handled 100 percent the right way all the time.
IseWolf22 said:If you are talking about initial media reactions....sure. You won't ever see me defending CNN and their ilk. But legally speaking that's completely false. It's really, really hard for an officer to be prosecuted, criminally or civilly for misconduct.James Henderson said:
I'd much rather he have not shot 7 times too, but I've never been in that situation and behind a gun with my life on the line so I don't know what I'd do.
I'd bet that cop right now is probably saying he wishes he could have handled even that part differently, but for me, this is why these types of police deals won't go away. We've made it a point to where the cops basically need to ask for permission to protect themselves, and that's a dangerous situation.
There is a human element here and in these situations everything won't be handled 100 percent the right way all the time.
100%.
Cops have historically enjoyed almost complete freedom from legal repercussions of killing citizens.
In a given year, police kill around 1,000 Americans. Only around 1% of those killings result in a murder or manslaughter charges against cops; only around half of officers are convicted (0.5%); and most of those convicted had charges reduced to lesser crimes.
So if you're a cop, historically there has been a 99.5% chance that if you kill someone in the line of duty that you won't be charged and convicted of murder or manslaughter.
And the cases that are successful are almost never circumstances where the civilian brandished a weapon. If a cop can credibly claim they feared for their life, that case isn't going anywhere.
That's not exactly "needing to ask permission to protect yourself," unless you're talking about needing to protect yourself on social media.
Featured Stories
See All
IPS IN 5: The Pursuit Continues
by James Henderson
IPS INTEL: The Remaining Spot
by James Henderson
IPS INTEL: Defensive Line Target On The Radar
by Steve Williams
IPS IN 5: Big Win For Wolfpack In Opener At FSU
by James Henderson