DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Blake Shooting

The cops should have never pulled him over in the first place. Then when he resisted they should have apoligized, handed the guy all of their cash, and told him to go ahead leave, and have a wonderful day (While disney charactors flew around their heads whistling, and singing)

You jest, but read some of the demands by the political organization that is Black Lives Matter and see what they have to say about police, blacks, and traffic violations.

So you're the same guy making a huge point out of "He was in possession of a knife"? Which everyone knows means that somewhere in that vehicle there was a knife. It doesn't mean he had it in his hand or on his person. We all know that yet you made some dramatic attempt to make that sound far more ominous than it actually was.

I have shown that the SCOTUS ruled against shooting an unarmed man fleeing the police. There is zero evidence this man was holding a knife. Zero. Yet somehow you think someone has to prove he didn't have a knife in his hand? That's not how the justice system works.

Innocent until proven dead, I mean shot, I mean guilty is how this works.

The man who filmed the video has gone on record saying that he heard the police say "Drop the knife!" before Blake was shot. You can somewhat hear them say it in the video. How is that no evidence?

The police union has said he was holding a knife. How is that no evidence?

The video shows him holding something in his left hand? How is that no evidence?

The knife was found afterward the shooting, on the floor of the car, right where Blake was shot. Unless you are saying that Blake keeps a knife on the floor of his car with 3 children inside, how is that no evidence?

You literally have no evidence that he wasn't holding a knife, other than Blake's family saying he wasn't, even though they also said he didn't have any weapons in the car. One of those statements has to be false, so sorry if I don't believe that.

It makes me wonder if you would have been OK with this guy getting in his car and fleeing with kids inside. Who am I kidding? If he wrecked and killed all the kids, that would be the cops fault.

The same man said he saw no knife. Something in his hand is not a knife. Was the knife in his car open?

And you have no evidence he was holding a knife.

Like I said before, I'm sure the cops just said "Drop the knife!" without seeing a knife in his hand, just so they could justify shooting him, and then they got lucky and found a knife in the car right in the exact place it would be if he dropped it after getting shot. What a coincidence!

What is your explanation for the cops saying "Drop the knife!" if it was in the car the whole time?

“BuT jUsT cOmPlY”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ead-arrest.html



We all know what would happen if someone who look like me acted like this.

Sick of the hypocrisy. The black guy didn’t have a warrant either.

Cops will say ANYTHING to justify brutality.

He resisted

I feared for my life

I thought he had a gun

I’m sick of that crap. Why is it that every day Americans are expected to act with more composure and restraint than THE PEOPLE PAID AND TRAINED TO DO SO?

Conservatives will act like it’s civilians fault for panicking yet will make excuses 24/7 for cops acting with no composure.

My explanation is they said one thing and an eye witness said something else. Cops have also pleaded not guilty for the murder of George Floyd. Do you believe that too?

I didn't say it was in the car the whole time. I'm saying there is no substantial evidence otherwise. And you certainly haven't provided any.

Watch the refs delete the 2nd vid because of “cuss words”.

Cause highlighting how white guys get to scream and and yell and throw crap at the cops while a black guy is standing there and still gets kicked in the back is against board policy.

The guy you replied to has no evidence Blake WASN'T holding knife.

Forgotten is the fact they tazed him with no effect. Forgotten is the fact he scuffled with them. Forgotten is the fact the police were lawfully there, due to a call dispatch got that identified Blake.

Lemme see.....a tazer did nothing to him, he fought with cops, he disobeyed the lawful orders of LEO, he had a weapon OR went to get a weapon OR was going to flee. Hmmm...

Was him getting shot 7 times excessive? In my estimation, yes. Perhaps as more evidence produced, we'll get all the facts.

Just like the 17 year old that traveled to a different state to 'protect'............the 17 year old had no business being there. Blake had no business disobeying lawful police orders. In both cases, no one needed to be shot.

(let alone, 7 times in the back)

I guess you forgot about innocent until proven guilty. Guilt is something that has to be proven. Nothing he posted gave proof of guilt. Keep on keepin' on arch.

You DO have a point in those 2 videos you posted. No doubt.

I guess you forgot about real time action. Sorry bud, the judge and jury wasn't there to monitor everything in real time.

And conflicting reports do not provide evidence.

Okay Last word Larry.

You said there was no proof he had a knife.


I said there was no proof he didn't have a knife.

A knife was found, on the floor of the vehicle, right where, IF he had it in his hand, it would have fallen when he was shot.

More info will come out in the next days/weeks. WE do not have the ability to determine.

Thank you for not playing like he's guilty, Karen.

jc

so one thing we ALL need to be careful about is posting people's backgrounds as if thats really their criminal record and such.

and to highlight what i mean, i'll use an example amongst black people that i have to constantly correct them on.

i think we can all agree that Michael Jordan is a very common name. so black people a while back thought that the michael jordan nba player was investing into private prisons, when it was actually a white guy from the west coast who was doing that.

now, im not saying jacob blake doesnt have a record. what i AM saying is that jacob blake is a common name, and that the cops didn't know about his record prior to the incident.

and when i see people trying to defend this trash ass 17 year old kid by bringing up records of who he shot, was that the right people? or did they find somebody with the same names and quickly post it thinking it was those guys?

there's a reason why you need a SS # to do a proper background check, and can't rely solely on public records.

just wanted to give everyone that PSA.

Well, that's a long way from saying definitively "He was unarmed" like you and Rocket said a couple pages ago.

That's the problem though, you made that as a statement of fact, without any research, because you had heard it from some news commentor or comedian. You don't know he was unarmed! So why make that statement?

This is exactly what "comedians" and athletes do all the time. If you have a platform to speak, you better be informed so you don't spread false info.

Most of the athletes on the Taylor shooting, if you were to ask them, probably would say the cops went to the wrong address and shot her while she was laying in bed, even though that isn't close to what happened.

One problem. I never said that. Which makes the rest of what you posted pure BS. I did say cops have killed unarmed black men. That is true. People keep using the excuse that, "Yeah but the cop felt threatened" and "But he was running from the cops". For that I say the SCOTUS ruled that it is unlawful to shoot an unarmed person for fleeing.

Nowhere, anywhere did I say Blake was unarmed.

I do agree with you about the Breonna Taylor shooting however based on what I've seen.

j/c:

PHOTO PROOF — Jacob Blake was carrying knife in left hand…

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/photo-proof-jacob-blake-was-carrying-knife-in-left-hand/

P.S. I'm not 100% sure that is a knife. Is it?

I'd have to see the original footage because I never saw a knife before this clip. Not sure if it was missed or if it's editing.

Doesn’t matter ...was he charged with assault with a deadly weapon at the scene? If not why not? You know if the cops knew he had a knife. Instead the cop just shots 7 times to the back. Still attempted murder by my book.

I haven't commented on this yet - I'm happy for the facts to materialize. The link you posted is the first time I have looked/watched anything about this incident since I don't see how it benefits me to watch something you know ends so tragically.

Having clicked the link and watched the footage - I can't say with any certainty that the guy is holding a knife or not holding a knife.

I can say with complete certainty, in my own mind, that the two police officers look like they were acting in a totally amateur fashion, following him, then grabbing him in a weird way and awkward way as he was getting in the car .... either the guy had a knife in which case why would you deliberately get close to the man and grab him? . . . if he didn't have a knife (which is how the officers appear to be reacting to me) then what is the goal?

Shooting a guy in the back in that situation seems to have been a completely avoidable escalation, armed or unarmed with a knife. And failing to obey a police officer is NOT grounds for a public execution.

Your book sucks.

The problem with that is this: if the cops would have backed off and not tried to restrain Blake, you would be just like the comedian in Rocket's unfactual, biased video, and you would say "Why didn't the cops try restraining him before shooting him! You can't go straight from giving orders to shooting!"

So, you and others like you would be complaining no matter what the cops did.

Most of you sound like you think the cops should have just let Blake drive off, with a weapon, in a vehicle with 3 kids that the cops didn't know Blake's relationship to at the time. For all they know, those kids could have belonged to the girl who called the police, and Blake could have posed a major threat to them.

LOL....

Why would they need to shot him if they didn't try to restrain him? What don't you get? Not listening to the police officer is not advisable ... but it's not justification for a freaking execution. smh. You don't think there are people who don't listen to what the police tell them to do every day? Hell there was a White guy in KY shooting at police officers with an AK-47 ... and he didn't get shot 7 times (in the back).

So the cop felt "so threatened by a knife" that he ran the guy down, grabbed his shirt and shot him in the back? Yeah...

So, in your guys opinion, what should the cops have done as Blake is walking toward the car and opened up the door, under the assumption that he had a knife in his hand?

Again, I can't say for a fact that he had a knife, but you can't say for a fact that he didn't, but what if he did? What should the cops have done?

NOTHING. I'm not even sure what happened that put the cops focus on the guy breaking the fight up in the first place. Him trying to get in his car and leave, knife or no knife, is not a life or death offense.

Your answer seems to be chase him down from behind, grab him by the t-shirt and shoot him seven times in the back. Almost any other scenario one can think of would have been better than that.

This is getting crazy..

First we hear that he was holding a knife.. Then we see a picture with him holding what appears to be a knife.. Then we see the same picture without a knife.

Then we're told that the knife was on the floor of his car.. Then we're seeing a story that says he there wasn't a knife on the floor of the car.

Then we're told his kids were in his car.. Then we're told that it wasn't even his car.

One thing I have been able to determine. If the media outlet is left leaning, the story leans towards him being a innocent victim.

If the Media Outlet is Right leaning, the guy was a criminal and police were well within there rights to shoot him 7 times in the back.

And you wonder why America is so divided.

Maybe what we should do is wait until the facts come out...

I don't actually have to answer that question. I don't know what training they have or not had.

I do know - that the answer to your scenario is NOT to shoot him 7 times in the back. Period.

I hate speculating without facts .... but didn't I read that they "tried" to tazer him? Well unless the guy has some super power to resist that ... either their equipment was faulty or they failed to execute. But *assuming* they *had to* detain him, then that would seem to be the obvious thing to try.

And see, I don't understand any scenario that can defend, "Well he had a knife so we ran him down from behind and shot him seven times in the back".

Criminals get their day in court, not shot in the back. They couldn't have felt threatened at the time he was shot because he was fleeing them, running away from them. So knife or no knife, that does not excuse an attempted execution.

Any time someone comes up from behind and hits someone they call that a sucker punch. It's considered unmanly and cowardly. Yet when a cop comes up from behind, grabs a man and shoots him seven times in the back, we get questions like, "What should the cops have done?"

It sure as hell wasn't that!

There is another video that shows he was interacting with police near the passenger rear of the vehicle, then suddenly he is up and walking around the car.

I don't know what happened, the video is shaky and grainy, but it does in some way tend to lend itself to theory that he may have had a knife, which could cause officers to jump back a moment.

All that said, I still see no reason to shoot the man in the back 6 times.

All the technology we have, there has to be better tools available. Deadly force should be an absolute last resort or no doubt threat of life.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/08/26...-newday-vpx.cnn

Haha, so, basically, you guys can't even give an answer That's because there is no right answer to you.

How about multiple choice? Will that help?

Q1: What should the police do as the suspect walks toward the car door, assuming he had a knife?

A. Stay back, allow him to enter the vehicle with a knife, and then drive off; do not chase suspect in car
B. Stay back, allow him to enter the vehicle with a knife, and pursue him in your car
C. Stay back, allow him to enter vehicle with knife, and then shoot him
D. Stay back, allow him to open car door, then shoot him
E. Stay back and shoot him before he opens car door
F. Attempt to prevent him from opening car door by restraining him, but opening yourself up to possibly be stabbed
G. Other - please mention what they should do, in your opinion

Q2: If restraining fails, what should the police do?

A. Allow suspect to drive off without pursuit
B. Allow suspect to drive off, but persue
C. Continue trying to subdue the suspect until you succeed or you are stabbed
D. Shoot the suspect

All those situations are "no win" situations. It is not the cops' fault, if the suspect had a knife, that he put them in that situation by not complying.

Really, the only thing you can point to and say is that shooting 7 times seems excessive. But don't blame the cops and say they acted wrongly when the actions of the suspect are what put them in a "no win" situation.

You can try to reframe and repack the question as many times as you like. The answer is consistently "NOT SHOOT THE GUY IN THE BACK 7 TIMES"....

Your continued attempts to put this on the victim says everything. I repeat: Not obeying an instruction from a Police Officer is not grounds for immediate execution.

I gave you an answer but you didn't like that answer. So let's try it again.

When a suspect is running away from you, he isn't a threat to you. When you have to chase him down from behind, grab his shirt and shoot him seven times in the back, that isn't protecting yourself. Every day cops have a similar situation all across this country and the suspect isn't shot in the back, much less seven times.

So, it sounds like from your answers, you would both be ok with option A for Q1, since the suspect is not shot in that option.

So, you are ok with allowing a man with a weapon to kidnap 3 kids while doing nothing...Bold move.