I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
In what fantasy world are cops ever held accountable for their actions?
Do you know anything about police unions or qualified immunity?
I think you'd like to believe the things you are saying, but reality doesn't back that up. Your post also reveals a remarkable bias: you see cops as humans who can make mistakes, but the people they kill as criminals.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Where did you see he definitely had a firearm in his possession when he was arrested?
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
Exactly.
To further add to your point, the role of the police is not to sentence or deliver punishment. The role of the police is to apprehend and then let the criminal justice system perform its duties.
Someone with a criminal record is no more deserving of death than someone with no criminal record.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
In what fantasy world are cops ever held accountable for their actions?
Do you know anything about police unions or qualified immunity?
I think you'd like to believe the things you are saying, but reality doesn't back that up. Your post also reveals a remarkable bias: you see cops as humans who can make mistakes, but the people they kill as criminals.
The two that have been referenced were criminals. Sorry if that is bias, but it's the truth.
Will the officers charged with George Floyd's murder be found guilty? I personally don't think they will get a murder charge conviction and I believe they should have gone for manslaughter. Floyd was on Fentynal(sp) and said he couldn't breathe before they had him on the ground. The drug makes it hard to breathe. Good case for the defense.
Police come into contact with people millions of times a year and we hear nothing of it. If a police officer kills an unarmed white person(which they do more than blacks) we never hear anything about it because it doesn't fit the narrative that the police are racist. If the cops are proven to be guilty then they should pay the price. They have a really tough job and right now hardly anybody is standing up with them. They aren't perfect, but I for one am glad they are there everyday doing their jobs. Unions get in the way of everything. I am not a big fan of them in any way.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
Exactly.
To further add to your point, the role of the police is not to sentence or deliver punishment. The role of the police is to apprehend and then let the criminal justice system perform its duties.
Someone with a criminal record is no more deserving of death than someone with no criminal record.
Nobody said it's their role. They are allowed to protect themselves though.
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
That is the justice system then if they are committing misconduct and not being convicted. And yes those crimes did not deserve the death penalty, so don't resist and don't commit crimes and have warrants out for your arrest. It's really pretty simple.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
That is the justice system then if they are committing misconduct and not being convicted. And yes those crimes did not deserve the death penalty, so don't resist and don't commit crimes and have warrants out for your arrest. It's really pretty simple.
George Floyd complied with the police and was executed in broad daylight.
So you might forgive black people for not exactly trusting that following the rules will keep them safe.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
Rittenhouse was surrendering. The Police did not know he was involved with the shooting so they drove right past him. It wasn't some devious plan not to arrest the white guy. They didn't know he was the shooter.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
That is the justice system then if they are committing misconduct and not being convicted. And yes those crimes did not deserve the death penalty, so don't resist and don't commit crimes and have warrants out for your arrest. It's really pretty simple.
George Floyd complied with the police and was executed in broad daylight.
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
You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.
I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.
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? 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.
My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.
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?
Tase him Tackle him Fire a warning shot Not shoot him SEVEN times in the back
Come on.
I just want to point out that he was tased, they did scuffle with him....dude just kept on going....at some point enough is enough
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
Dude that's just a straight-up lie. The dude fought with police, was tased, and had a freaking knife and was going inside the car with it to do who-knows-what.
Again, a debate can be had as to whether shooting was the right move at that point, but he was not son innocent babe in the woods that had done no wrong whatsoever. He was WAY in the wrong already before that ever happened.
And the kid that shot protesters complied. He didn't fight with the police. He didn't resist arrest. He did what he was told, peacefully, and he was treated as such.
The same exact thing would have happened to Jacob if he would have acted that way.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
That is the justice system then if they are committing misconduct and not being convicted. And yes those crimes did not deserve the death penalty, so don't resist and don't commit crimes and have warrants out for your arrest. It's really pretty simple.
George Floyd complied with the police and was executed in broad daylight.
So you might forgive black people for not exactly trusting that following the rules will keep them safe.
Come on man, Donald Trump has a better grip on the truth then you do here.
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
Here is the difference...if the guy had gotten to his vehicle pulled out a gun...then shot and killed both of the officers no one that is protesting would care....you wouldn't care.
The fact of the matter is that the police were called on the guy...he resisted arrest...he was tased and it didn't stop him...the police tried to restrain him and that didn't stop him...he had a knife on him walking to the vehicle..and then went in the door of the car before he was shot
At what point do you think that the guy who was shot is at fault here. He escalated the situation several times before he was shot. There are at least 4 to 5 points in the situation where he could of stopped and it would of prevented everything that happened...but he didn't.
At some point you need to be able to look at the situation objectively and say that this didn't need to happen and it wasn't the cops fault. Until you have the ability to do that then you are going to think that every situation like this is the cop's fault...but it's not. Quite honestly no amount of debate with you is going to change that.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
Sounds like cops have a pretty carefree life, with no accountability. Not too shabby!
The volleying of this topic / subject is better than any recent tennis matches.
Back and forth we go, where it stops, nobody knows.
Just trying to lighten things up. Some of y'all need a good stiff drink or a nice , warm bath or a walk around the block. You ain't going to solve or resolve this issue on a message board.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
That is the justice system then if they are committing misconduct and not being convicted. And yes those crimes did not deserve the death penalty, so don't resist and don't commit crimes and have warrants out for your arrest. It's really pretty simple.
George Floyd complied with the police and was executed in broad daylight.
This has got to be the biggest whopper in the history of these boards.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
Sounds like cops have a pretty carefree life, with no accountability. Not too shabby!
Why don't you sign up?
They have very, very, very little risk of prosecution when they kill someone. Essentially less than a 1% chance of being prosecuted and a 0.5% chance of being convicted of anything.
Police unions also make it difficult, bordering on impossible, to fire bad officers.
Forget race for a minute. Are those good things for American citizens?
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
Here is the difference...if the guy had gotten to his vehicle pulled out a gun...then shot and killed both of the officers no one that is protesting would care....you wouldn't care.
The fact of the matter is that the police were called on the guy...he resisted arrest...he was tased and it didn't stop him...the police tried to restrain him and that didn't stop him...he had a knife on him walking to the vehicle..and then went in the door of the car before he was shot
At what point do you think that the guy who was shot is at fault here. He escalated the situation several times before he was shot. There are at least 4 to 5 points in the situation where he could of stopped and it would of prevented everything that happened...but he didn't.
At some point you need to be able to look at the situation objectively and say that this didn't need to happen and it wasn't the cops fault. Until you have the ability to do that then you are going to think that every situation like this is the cop's fault...but it's not. Quite honestly no amount of debate with you is going to change that.
The cops pulled out their guns and shot him seven times. He did nothing that came anywhere close to warranting that kind of response
Are you telling me that two cops weren't capable of tackling him and restraining him? Or, if he resists arrest and you can't subdue him and he flees, put out a warrant for his arrest.
This woman resisted arrest every bit as much as Blake did and didn't get shot seven times:
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
That is the justice system then if they are committing misconduct and not being convicted. And yes those crimes did not deserve the death penalty, so don't resist and don't commit crimes and have warrants out for your arrest. It's really pretty simple.
That's the entire reason people are pushing for reform. Unions are major donors to district attorneys and city councils. They are often one of the most powerful political entities in their city. DAs and councils who do not support them are often met with backlash. Officers face peer pressure not testify against other officers.
Unions give cops special rights during misconduct investigations. Those investigations are often secret and not available via normal Freedom of Information requests. A cop who ends up getting fired is entitled to multiple appeals that are usually granted, often against the wishes of their police chief. The rare one that does get fired doesn't have their record checked when they apply to another job elsewhere. Anyone attempting to get justice in Federal court is usually blocked by qualified immunity. QI is an arbitrary standard created by the supreme court and has grown with precedent. A law has to be passed to end the practice.
If there isn't any change, these protests will never stop. We'll be stuck in this stupid cycle over and over.
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
Sounds like cops have a pretty carefree life, with no accountability. Not too shabby!
Why don't you sign up?
They have very, very, very little risk of prosecution when they kill someone. Essentially less than a 1% chance of being prosecuted and a 0.5% chance of being convicted of anything.
Police unions also make it difficult, bordering on impossible, to fire bad officers.
Forget race for a minute. Are those good things for American citizens?
Police in the US kill American citizens at a rate FAR greater than other Western countries. Most of those killed are white.
Either: Americans are a much more violent, lawless, society
OR
American police officers kill way too many ****ing people.
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
Here is the difference...if the guy had gotten to his vehicle pulled out a gun...then shot and killed both of the officers no one that is protesting would care....you wouldn't care.
The fact of the matter is that the police were called on the guy...he resisted arrest...he was tased and it didn't stop him...the police tried to restrain him and that didn't stop him...he had a knife on him walking to the vehicle..and then went in the door of the car before he was shot
At what point do you think that the guy who was shot is at fault here. He escalated the situation several times before he was shot. There are at least 4 to 5 points in the situation where he could of stopped and it would of prevented everything that happened...but he didn't.
At some point you need to be able to look at the situation objectively and say that this didn't need to happen and it wasn't the cops fault. Until you have the ability to do that then you are going to think that every situation like this is the cop's fault...but it's not. Quite honestly no amount of debate with you is going to change that.
The cops pulled out their guns and shot him seven times. He did nothing that came anywhere close to warranting that kind of response
Are you telling me that two cops weren't capable of tackling him and restraining him? Or, if he resists arrest and you can't subdue him and he flees, put out a warrant for his arrest.
This woman resisted arrest every bit as much as Blake did and didn't get shot seven times:
And that's the exact same thing? You don't see any difference at all?
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
Here is the difference...if the guy had gotten to his vehicle pulled out a gun...then shot and killed both of the officers no one that is protesting would care....you wouldn't care.
The fact of the matter is that the police were called on the guy...he resisted arrest...he was tased and it didn't stop him...the police tried to restrain him and that didn't stop him...he had a knife on him walking to the vehicle..and then went in the door of the car before he was shot
At what point do you think that the guy who was shot is at fault here. He escalated the situation several times before he was shot. There are at least 4 to 5 points in the situation where he could of stopped and it would of prevented everything that happened...but he didn't.
At some point you need to be able to look at the situation objectively and say that this didn't need to happen and it wasn't the cops fault. Until you have the ability to do that then you are going to think that every situation like this is the cop's fault...but it's not. Quite honestly no amount of debate with you is going to change that.
The cops pulled out their guns and shot him seven times. He did nothing that came anywhere close to warranting that kind of response
Are you telling me that two cops weren't capable of tackling him and restraining him? Or, if he resists arrest and you can't subdue him and he flees, put out a warrant for his arrest.
This woman resisted arrest every bit as much as Blake did and didn't get shot seven times:
And that's the exact same thing? You don't see any difference at all?
These are obtuse questions. Of course it's not exactly the same thing and of course there are differences.
But when a black person sees this video, and then sees Black get shot SEVEN TIMES in the back, well, they get a little pissed. You may not agree with that, but is it that hard to understand?
And I'll ask, again: why was he shot SEVEN times? What's the justification for bullets 2-7?
I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.
Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?
Who benefits from resisting arrest?
The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?
It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.
Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.
I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.
But they are human and they have split seconds to make life and death decisions. There are some bad police, but 99.9% I believe are trying to do the right thing. They want to do their job then hopefully come home at night to their family. And you said it perfectly above. "Perps are criminals" and many times they lose their lives during the commission of crimes. We hold the police officers accountable for their actions, but the actions of the criminals get forgotten.
1st, No we don't hold them accountable for their actions. That's pretty much the point of all these pages. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your 99.9% number here. Why is it so damn difficult to punish the 0.1%? Why does the police union block them from being fired? Why are they immune from suits in civil court 99% of the time, even if the judge believes the officer committed misconduct? Why can the rare cop who actually is fired, move a short ways away and get the same job again?
As for the criminal...they are dead. Why should we keep focusing on that. In almost all cases, they weren't committing crimes worthy of the death penalty
That is the justice system then if they are committing misconduct and not being convicted. And yes those crimes did not deserve the death penalty, so don't resist and don't commit crimes and have warrants out for your arrest. It's really pretty simple.
George Floyd complied with the police and was executed in broad daylight.
This has got to be the biggest whopper in the history of these boards.
I just don't get why any of these reforms are so controversial, or why Republicans are the primary opposition. Cops are agents of the state. If you're concerned with government power and overreach, you should be concerned about Police reforms. They are the enforcement arm of government power. And if "99.9%" of officers are great then these changes are only going to affect the remainder who have no business having a badge and gun
They have very, very, very little risk of prosecution when they kill someone. Essentially less than a 1% chance of being prosecuted and a 0.5% chance of being convicted of anything.
Police unions also make it difficult, bordering on impossible, to fire bad officers.
Forget race for a minute. Are those good things for American citizens?
Police in the US kill American citizens at a rate FAR greater than other Western countries. Most of those killed are white.
Either: Americans are a much more violent, lawless, society
OR
American police officers kill way too many ****ing people.
I really don't get it.
In their haste to proclaim equal treatment and a lack of police bias, many conservative whites in this country essentially say, "Yeah, but police kill a bunch of white people too!"
Ummmm...OK. Does that make any of us feel better?
Even if you can't get behind the bias piece, get behind the "police kill too many people, period" piece. Either way, reform that and American citizens benefit.
You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.
Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.
The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.
Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.
Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.
It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.
Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.
Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.
That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.
This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???
Jacob Blake never shot anyone.
Did that guy fight police? Did he not comply? Did he do anything that would increase the odds that he might get shot?
Jacob Blake did all that.
Now, if you want to argue if he SHOULD have been shot, fine, but the other situation is in no way comparable. And it wasn't because the kid was white, either. He complied. And didn't get shot. That's how it goes, 99.999% of the time.
He had literally just killed two people and definitely had a firearm in his possession.
Again: Did he resist arrest? Did he comply? Did he give the cops any reason to shoot him?
Having potentially committed a crime previously isn't a reason to shoot him. Actively resisting arrest might well be, though.
So....did he do any of these things? Or did he comply?
Are you arguing that resisting arrest is a reason for the police to shoot someone 7 times in the back?
This is my point. You're coming up with justifications for one situation that are different than the other.
The white guy with a gun who just shot people was treated differently than a black guy without a gun who simply walked away from the cops. That is why people are protesting.
Here is the difference...if the guy had gotten to his vehicle pulled out a gun...then shot and killed both of the officers no one that is protesting would care....you wouldn't care.
The fact of the matter is that the police were called on the guy...he resisted arrest...he was tased and it didn't stop him...the police tried to restrain him and that didn't stop him...he had a knife on him walking to the vehicle..and then went in the door of the car before he was shot
At what point do you think that the guy who was shot is at fault here. He escalated the situation several times before he was shot. There are at least 4 to 5 points in the situation where he could of stopped and it would of prevented everything that happened...but he didn't.
At some point you need to be able to look at the situation objectively and say that this didn't need to happen and it wasn't the cops fault. Until you have the ability to do that then you are going to think that every situation like this is the cop's fault...but it's not. Quite honestly no amount of debate with you is going to change that.
The cops pulled out their guns and shot him seven times. He did nothing that came anywhere close to warranting that kind of response
Are you telling me that two cops weren't capable of tackling him and restraining him? Or, if he resists arrest and you can't subdue him and he flees, put out a warrant for his arrest.
This woman resisted arrest every bit as much as Blake did and didn't get shot seven times:
The cops tried to restrain him and were unable to
The cops tased him and it didn't stop him
He was already armed with a knife and going back to his car for who knows what
He already had a warrant out for his arrest, and the cops were going to arrest him but he had other ideas
So what were the cops suppose to do here exactly?
Let him go and chase him? Could of been a high speed chase and with kids in the car could of been very deadly to both the kids and bystanders
Not try to stop him? What happens if he had a gun in the car? Both of the cops would of been shot and possibly killed
Put a warrant out on him and let him know? Your just extending the inevitable confrontation with police that would of happened later on in the day.
Like i said before....if he stopped at any of these points he would still be alive
When the police asked him to stop
After the police tased him
After the police tried to physically restrain him
After the police pulled their guns out
At any point when he was walking to the car before he opened the door.
The most easy solution to this is the simplest...don't be a criminal and have the cops called on you The second solution is to not resist arrest The third solution here is to not fight with the cops The fourth solution here is to not go to your car after pulling out a weapon when the cops are trying to arrest you.
Quite frankly I don't give a damn about whatever video you are linking. Different cops, different people, different location, and a different situation. I also think that the cops showed a lot of restraint. I'd of pulled the trigger the second that the guy pulled out a knife...most of us would of. I give it to the cops for showing as much restraint as they did.
Like i said before...its pretty obvious you would of been ok if the situation hadn't of turned out as well for the cops. No need to argue that
I just don't get why any of these reforms are so controversial, or why Republicans are the primary opposition. Cops are agents of the state. If you're concerned with government power and overreach, you should be concerned about Police reforms. They are the enforcement arm of government power. And if "99.9%" of officers are great then these changes are only going to affect the remainder who have no business having a badge and gun
It's been laid bare over the last couple of decades that Republicans aren't actually concerned with government power or overreach, they just want government power and overreach that benefits them.
And both Dems and Pubs like to tax and spend, they just like to spend on different stuff.
Pubs like to spend big on the military and prisons and drug law enforcement and capital punishment. These foci and expenditures illustrate what their view of "justice" is.
Viewed through that lens, it's easy to see why we are where we are.
