Video Shows Cop Shooting Wisconsin Man in the Back 7 Times

Witnesses say Jacob Blake was breaking up a fight before an officer grabbed his shirt and shot him at close range.

Just a few months after the police killing of George Floyd sparked national protests, a cellphone video shows officers in Wisconsin repeatedly shooting a man in the back, leaving him in critical condition.

The short video, shot Sunday afternoon, shows members of the Kenosha Police Department (KPD) pointing a gun at Jacob Blake while he walks toward a vehicle. While Blake opens the door, an officer grabs his shirt and shoots him at close range, in the back, seven times. Blake slumps against the car horn while onlookers react in horror.

(Video may be disturbing to some viewers.)

https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1297721479711334401

The KPD released a vague statement about the incident, saying that the officers were responding to a domestic incident before shooting Blake. The department also said that the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation will investigate the shooting.

While details are still emerging, multiple witnesses told Kenosha News that Blake was intervening in a fight between two women when police arrived to break up the incident. Witnesses also said that officers attempted to use a Taser before shooting Blake and that Blake was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

After being shot, Blake was transported to Froedtert Hospital in Wauwatosa, where he is said to be in serious condition.

The unarmed man shot in the back by Kenosha police as he was walking away this afternoon is 29-year-old Jacob Blake.

This photo was provided by his fiance. pic.twitter.com/mEklKPtgbE

— Rebecca Kavanagh (@DrRJKavanagh) August 24, 2020

Reactions to the video were swift. Within hours, protesters gathered.

Protesters are currently at the intersection of 40th Street and 28th Avenue in Kenosha, Wisconsin where the man was shot several times by police.

Police say he's in serious condition. pic.twitter.com/v0nhRxZvMb

— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) August 24, 2020

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Meg Jones shared on-the-scene photos and videos of the reaction, some of which occurred in front of the KPD building. Jones captured city vehicles being set on fire and police using tear gas against the crowd.

Protesters set a city of Kenosha dump truck on fire after being disbursed with teargas and flash bangs from in front of the Kenosha Police Department. pic.twitter.com/V6e7EoAWbJ

— Meg Jones (@MegJonesJS) August 24, 2020

Crowd sets city of Kenosha vehicles on fire. pic.twitter.com/cyJQ3UzgnR

— Meg Jones (@MegJonesJS) August 24, 2020

https://twitter.com/MegJonesJS/status/1297756964785725441

Crowd is lessening but there's still at least a couple of hundred people in the square next to the Kenosha County Courthouse. @journalsentinel pic.twitter.com/L86IBr7oOh

— Meg Jones (@MegJonesJS) August 24, 2020

The KPD announced a citywide curfew late Sunday evening.

Gov. Tony Evers wrote in a Facebook post, "We stand with all those who have and continue to demand justice, equity, and accountability for Black lives in our country—lives like those of George Floyd, of Breonna Taylor, Tony Robinson, Dontre Hamilton, Ernest Lacy, and Sylville Smith. And we stand against excessive use of force and immediate escalation when engaging with Black Wisconsinites."

Comments

[Moderation4ever]

I saw this video on the news this morning and was astounded. How can police officer not learn that shooting like this will end badly? Again rioting followed, but we have communities so wound up that it takes little to spark this action. There needs to be some major rethinking and that need to happen quickly.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

This looks like a bad shoot. That being said, the decision to shoot should be based upon necessity, not on the possibility of a riot breaking out.

[Brandybuck]

You're saying it was necessary to shoot an unarmed man in the back seven times?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

This looks like a bad shoot.

Reading is fundamental.

[JesseAz]

He has a narrative, he won't let your actual words get in his way.

[lmarkus.sergalw]

I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…PSl after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.

Here’s what I do…>>......> Click here

[DarthHusker]

I'm so sick of people doing that around these cases. They just form a preconception about what the "right" position is and any deviation from it makes them just assume you disagree with every aspect of it. It's like arguing with bad AI's that just regurgitate talking points based on whether or not they evaluate you as being on their side.

[Ron]

An unarmed man who was told to stop multiple times and reaching for something in his car. he thought he was above the law now he is below dirt. did he need to be shot? all this BS would end every time if they didn't act stupid

[Nardz]

He's actually in the hospital and in stable condition

[I, Woodchipper]

If you think this shooting is justified and a proper and acceptable outcome in a free country you should leave.

The cop shot an unarmed man in the back 7 times. Ignoring the cop and walking away doesn't give our police state the authority to simply fire away and execute you on the spot.

[Zeb]

Yeah, this. It may be stupid to walk away from a cop telling you to stop. But it is also within your rights unless you are under arrest. And in any case, there is no call for deadly force unless there is a clear threat. "He might have been getting a weapon" is bullshit. He might have been doing anything. You don't get to use deadly force because of your uncertainty about a situation.

[DFG]

If "he might have been going for a weapon" is all the justification cops need to use deadly force, then how long until they just start calling in neighborhood air strikes in response to calls? By that standard they could roll up to a call and just shoot everybody there in case somebody might do something dangerous.

[Presskh]

Looks bad. But, as others say, if you walk away from a Heated situation where you have been ordered to halt and attempt to do anything where you could be retrieving a weapon, you may be shot. And it is not within your rights to walk, run, or drive away when you have been lawfully ordered to halt by uniformed police officers. Otherwise, no one would ever obey an officer. That being said, we would have to know the circumstances under which the officers gave the command to determine if it was, indeed, a lawful order.

[Rossami]

Until and unless you have been arrested, it absolutely is within your legal rights to walk away. In fact, a failure to do so could be used as evidence that your staying is "voluntary".

[Gray_Jay]

There's a brief 'investigative detention', where the subject is not under arrest, nor has to be Mirandized, but also isn't free to leave either. Getting Tased, having a knife out and running from two cops with their guns out screaming at him, probably means we're past the investigative detention part of the proceedings.

It would be nice to know what the cops and what Mr. Bruce did before the cameras started recording.

[PenrodJ]

So you claim that a man who has two cops pointing guns at him has NOT been arrested? What world do you live in?

And how deranged do you need to be to ignore two people, cops or not, who are pointing guns at you?

And with two people pointing guns at you, you decide it is a really good idea to open your van door and reach in, mimicking a person going for a deadly weapon.

Look at all the YouTube cop dash cam videos of cops being shot because they allowed a suspect to do exactly that.

This guy was BEGGING to be shot.

[Rossami]

I live in the same world the police do, Penrod. Police regularly claim that suspect A was not "under arrest" when defending their own actions. And courts have let them get away with it, holding in multiple cases that suspects were technically "free to leave" in circumstances that no reasonable person would believe that to be the case.

I believe that police need to be held to the same standard that they hold us to. Whatever the "under arrest" rule is, it needs to be the same regardless of who's defending it.

All the rest of your suppositions about behavior and assumptions of bad intent are at best speculative and are NOT justification for police to use deadly force. Shoot first, ask questions later is NOT an acceptable policy. Police officer safety is NOT the first priority and if cops don't like it, find another job.

[svelat]

I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I've made such great m0ney.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happY that I found out about this HERE....

==========► Click here

[NOYB2]

He wasn't charged with walking away from police. It's just that his choice to run from police had consequences.

[NOYB2]

I believe that police need to be held to the same standard that they hold us to. Whatever the “under arrest” rule is, it needs to be the same regardless of who’s defending it.

"Under arrest" has nothing to do with this. There is nothing illegal about you running away from police, but there are still situations where police can shoot you when you do. Many legal actions you perform can have deadly consequences for yourself, and this is one of them.

That's why it's a good idea to stop when police tell you to stop, even though you are not actually legally obligated to do so.

[voluntaryist]

"...it is not within your rights..."? What rights? The LEO decides, you don't. An unlawful order by an unidentified plain-cloths official may result in murder by the LEO, and other officials "investigate", exonerate. "We would have to know the circumstances..."? Why? Are you implying "we" haven't seen enough "circumstances" yet? Maybe you haven't, and if not you will never be convinced. Meanwhile, the vast majority have seen enough abuse to know it is systemic. They just don't know what to do about it.
I advise self-defense, self-governance, self-restraint. Don't call 911 to stop violence. It only begets more violence.

[NOYB2]

An unlawful order by an unidentified plain-cloths official may result in murder by the LEO, and other officials “investigate”, exonerate.

What exactly is "unlawful" about a police officer telling a suspect in a violent felony to stop?

You apparently live under the delusion that if you act according to the law, nothing bad happens to you. That's not the real world. In the real world, people who act lawfully can get shot by other people who act lawfully. That's not because people are mean, it's because nobody has been able to come up with a better system.

Meanwhile, the vast majority have seen enough abuse to know it is systemic.

Yes: police shooting fleeing felony suspects in the back is systemic, as in, it is a possibility our legal and police system allows to happen.

They just don’t know what to do about it.

Nobody knows how to design a legal and police system that never results in harm to innocent people. You're welcome to try your hand at making proposals. But proposals like "it shall be illegal for police to shoot unarmed persons in the back" are not going to work and are not going to be acceptable to voters when all is said and done.

[Brett Bellmore]

" But it is also within your rights unless you are under arrest."

What exactly do you think the cop telling you to stop means, anyway? At that point, you might stop, and ask, "Am I under arrest?"

And if the cop says, "No", then maybe walk away. But as a general rule, If the cop tells you to stop, you ARE under arrest!

[CaveMan]

Not in Kentucky. The law here states to be "under arrest" you must be 1) Told you are under arrest. 2) Be told what you are under arrest for. 3) Be under the physical control of the arresting official either by voluntary compliance or by force.

These two cops had plenty of time and opportunity to physically stop this guy before he walked around his vehicle. Two cops, each grab an arm and take him down with a push to the back of the knee. But we have cowards as cops who think shooting or tasing are the only two things they should do.

[Nardz]

How is your #3 above a plausible requirement?
You're telling us that if you can simply evade restraint, you're not technically under arrest? What's the time limit on that?

As for this incident with Blake, he was apparently (so possibly, but unconfirmed) carrying a knife and had just gotten away from two cops attempts to tackle him.

Further: at what point are we going to talk about the "victim" in these situations having any kind of fucking responsibility for their own behavior?
The more you treat these guys as blameless, and focus exclusively and without reflection on the cops being evil/wrongdoers, the more often people are going to resist arrest and the more often they are going to get bad results from doing.
You're (plural) just perpetuating the cycle

[NOYB2]

Yeah, this. It may be stupid to walk away from a cop telling you to stop. But it is also within your rights unless you are under arrest.

You "have the right" to walk away from cops if you are not under arrest or detention, meaning that it is not illegal and there are no penalties. Cops "have the right" to shoot people who are running away from them even if they haven't been arrested or detained. Those two simple legal facts are not in conflict.

[NOYB2]

I have no idea whether the shooting was justified.

But the fact remains that police can legally shoot unarmed people in the back under certain conditions. You're welcome to articulate a coherent alternative policy.

[Ezra MacVie]

Jacob Blake will have been a drug dealer paying off the police for protection. The police, in turn, will have been dissatisfied for any of a number of reasons with his payments, and have "disciplined" him for the benefit of their many other "clients," who had better keep up their payments right smartly.
Is there any better explanation of this attempted murder?

[NOYB2]

If he was a dangerous, violent felon running from police, that's sufficient legal justification in many jurisdictions. Don't like it? Get the laws changed in your community.

[NOYB2]

Ignoring the cop and walking away doesn’t give our police state the authority to simply fire away and execute you on the spot.

You haven't lived in a police state, have you? As someone who has, let me fill you in: in a police state, cops don't need to shoot you because they can get you anytime, anywhere.

[Crazy mick]

You might be more at home in some 1970s south American dictatorship with death squads

[Nardz]

So... Chicago?
NYC?

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

Or any other democrat stronghold.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's pretty much my take on it. If a cop was telling me to stop, and I just kept walking around, opened the door to my car, and reached in, I'd expect to get shot. That's just common sense.

[DarthHusker]

People get angry and common sense doesn't always apply. That's why cops need to be better than the average person at deescalation, not worse (and I don't think the average armed person shoots there).

Note in Tennessee v. Garner (which is similar but not quite the same), the standard for the use of lethal force is probable cause "that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Not a hunch, not an unknown. The officers are claiming that "reaching for something" in conjunction with previous behavior constitutes such probable cause? He's not combative, but I suppose audio might justify it... but I doubt it. If there had been a weapon or an explicit threat, they'd have said so by now.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, in this case, we're not talking about random guy. We're talking about multiple felony charges, with an arrest warrant out for him, guy, who was just in a violent altercation. Doesn't that weight the judgement as to why he's ignoring two upraised guns and repeated orders to stop, in favor of "going for a weapon"? Rationally?

I mean, there are situations where the police absolutely should de-escalate. But it's not something the police can do unilaterally under all circumstances.

[David Nieporent]

But, in this case, we’re not talking about random guy. We’re talking about multiple felony charges, with an arrest warrant out for him, guy, who was just in a violent altercation. Doesn’t that weight the judgement as to why he’s ignoring two upraised guns and repeated orders to stop, in favor of “going for a weapon”? Rationally?

Since they wouldn't have known about those things, no.

[CaveMan]

Sure if you live in some third world hellhole. Not in the United States.

[DarthHusker]

The idea that not complying or "reaching for something" is an inherent threat deserving of lethal response is coward's logic. A manifest threat is one thing, fear of the unknown is something else.

Should he have complied? Of course. And depending on the context he should catch some charges for not doing so. But a free nation cannot allow police to have arbitrary authority to kill based on unknowns rather than positive facts. Same logic as Terry v Ohio at least should apply, and a shooting is much more intrusive on rights than a frisk.

[NOYB2]

But a free nation cannot allow police to have arbitrary authority to kill based on unknowns rather than positive facts.

Only the legal system can establish "positive facts"; police need to use their judgment. The amount of leeway voters give them determines outcomes, and it may differ from place to place. Your community may choose to have completely unarmed police, another community may choose to have police that is authorized to use deadly force whenever a felony suspect runs away.

Making that choice is something free people in a free society can do. You apparently want to deny people that choice by imposing national mandates and rules.

[svelat]

I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I've made such great m0ney.LBf I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happY that I found out about this HERE....

==========► Click here

[Presskh]

Sorry, but police officers have to make split-second judgement calls and will usually make the one that ensures that they themselves won’t die. Police have every right to come home at the end of the day, just as those in other jobs do. If you do not heed commands to halt, put your hands up, etc., and start making moves that can be perceived as potentially accessing a weapon, you will, in all likelihood, be shot. That is not an unreasonable defensive reaction by police.

[CaveMan]

The lives and rights of citizens are more important than a cop making it home safe at the end of shift.

No cop should even draw their weapon until there is a clear identified threat. Reaching into a vehicle not a threat. PERIOD.

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, but police officers have to make split-second judgement calls and will usually make the one that ensures that they themselves won’t die. Police have every right to come home at the end of the day, just as those in other jobs do.

I assure you that if you (assuming you are not a police officer) shoot an unarmed person in the back and say, "Well, I thought it was possible he was going to get a gun and shoot me," you will be convicted of murder.

[Rossami]

re: "the decision to shoot should be based upon necessity, not on the possibility of a riot breaking out"

I disagree, Unicorn. This is a variation on the Trolley Problem. Consider the following hypothetical. Good cop A is deciding whether to shoot a evil-genius criminal who is hiding in a school. If he doesn't shoot, criminal will escape with a child-hostage who will later be killed. If he does shoot, the evil genius has arranged things such that a riot will ensue which will kill multiple children.

Okay, it's a hokey hollywoodish hypothetical. And it doesn't actually matter whether you think the cop should save the one kid or not. My point in the hypothetical is that the thing you can't do is completely ignore the consequence with the riot. However you make your decision, you have to look down both sets of tracks as best you can in the time allowed.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

When it's your life, feel free to ponder this possibility.

[Rossami]

If you don't ponder it now while you are calm and clear-headed, how will you possibly address it when the adrenaline is pumping and seconds count?

Again, I have offered no opinion on how this particular decision should have come out. Nor do I minimize that these are difficult questions. I am merely disagreeing with your claim above that the potential for collective harm should not even be considered during the decision.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Well, here's another hypothetical - you're a cop, If you don't shoot the armed suspect, he's going to shoot you. Does the possibility of an ensuing riot impact your decision?

[Rossami]

Of course. First, I hope that I am selfless enough to consider more than the mere consequences to myself. It's something we train into soldiers with surprising success. I hope that we are training it into cops, too. (Unfortunately, I fear that the misnamed "warrior mentality" actively trains it out of them.)

Second, if I believe that I'm going to die in the ensuing riot either way then my personal death becomes irrelevant to the decision.

Now you could counter that those considerations are too deep for practical decision-making in the moment. Yet there are plenty of stories of soldiers jumping on grenades and other acts of selfless bravery in defense of others. It's not out of bounds for the decision.

[Zeb]

A cop's job (or part of it) is to take on dangerous situations so other people don't have to. You are right about what an ordinary non-cop is obliged to consider. It's different for a cop. Police need to accept that their job requires them to put others' safety before their own.

[Granite]

Wrong. A cops job is to ensure he and his cop friends make it home safely. That is the ONLY priority that a cop has. Everything else is just collateral.

[markm23]

When did cowardice become the standard of conduct for police? If they rate their own safety above that of the public, they should not be paid.

[Presskh]

A police officer’s job is to enforce laws that have been passed, as well as protect the community from perceived threats. It is not a job requirement to sacrifice their lives for crime suspects who refuse to obey commands. Moreover, it should be remembered that the side arm they carry is one of their tools for law enforcement, not just a decoration.

[con_fuse9]

How about if your a cop, you shoot all suspects just in case they are armed? That way you will be nice and safe.
Sorry, this is why we have police, they are supposed to be trained that in a situation they take the time to truely assess what is going on before they jump to conclusions and start using force (deadly or otherwise). And yes, they earn the money to hesitate.
If the solution was to shoot everyone that was perceived to be bad, we wouldn't need police. I'm a better shot then they are anyway.

[voluntaryist]

"If the solution was to shoot everyone..."
That is exactly the solution for many LEOs. That's why we don't need police. We need to self-defend, self-govern, live & let live.

[Frank Thorn]

"What-if" - The go-to argument when you have nothing better.

[CaveMan]

An armed suspect was not shot in the back in this instance. An unarmed suspect was shot in the back with no threat being made to the government employees.

[con_fuse9]

Agreed, with adrenaline pumping you fall back to your training.
And by training, I don't necessarily mean official, "police school" training but also including years in the "system".

Which is precisely the complaint.

The training emphasizes "us vs them" - we can only rely on "thin blue line". Which presupposes that the only question left is to decide what side of that line you are on. Add the racial component, and the decision becomes 'easy'

[NOYB2]

I am merely disagreeing with your claim above that the potential for collective harm should not even be considered during the decision.

Great. Then also consider this collective harm: a violent felon escaping police and continuing a crime spree. That collective harm is why police are permitted to use deadly force to stop the escape of violent felons in many places.

[Rossami]

A potentially valid consideration but it has nothing to do with Unicorn's original claim at the top of this thread.

However, it's worth noting that you are assuming rather a lot in your hypothetical. The police on the scene in this particular case had no reason to believe that Blake was a felon or even that he had committed any crime that could be "continued" to "a spree". From what I've seen so far, I don't even think there was a reasonable basis for determining Blake to be "violent".

Yes, you can make all sorts of wild speculations about what someone might grab from a car. Purely speculative fears are not justification for use of deadly force.

[NOYB2]

I'm just pointing out that the reason police are allowed to shoot unarmed people in the back is because the law takes "collective harm" into consideration.

I have no idea whether the shooting was justified in this case or not. Neither do you. That's for a court of law to determine.

I'm just saying that the premises you start out with are wrong. On top of that, of course, you are also engaging in wild and unfounded speculation.

[Zeb]

When there is an immediate threat to your life, sure. But that is often not the case when a cop shoots someone. But if there is no immediate threat of physical harm, I think a cop needs to consider the big picture to minimize the possibility of harm to innocent people.

[Nardz]

So execute the first rioters to send a message?

[NOYB2]

But if there is no immediate threat of physical harm, I think a cop needs to consider the big picture to minimize the possibility of harm to innocent people.

And that's the original justification for why cops have been permitted to shoot people they merely suspect of being violent criminals, regardless of whether that suspect is a threat to the cop or not.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Good cop A is..."

I find this part of your hypothetical to be wholly implausible.

[JFree]

Seems to me that this sort of attempted murder should be treated as a militia issue at this point.

Article 1 Section 8 - To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

The police are the major successor to a militia. Congress - not local/state govt is responsible for organizing, arming, disciplining that. And while the states are responsible for training according to that discipline, it is very clear that too many are failing at that. Across many jurisdictions and where there is a clear congressional authority to fix that.

How is a different question but it is obvious that the responsibility can no longer be abdicated to police unions and local govt. Shame because that is usually where that responsibility should rest - but it's true.

[Frank Thorn]

In the cop break room it's a group belly laugh.

[Trainer]

Actually, they don't usually end badly. The cop has to do some paperwork and then gets gets paid time off. The problem with that is anytime a behavior is rewarded (using a gun is easier, paperwork isn't too bad, love the time off with pay) it becomes more frequent, more intense and more generalized. And by more generalized, I mean not just black and brown people in the ghetto- it becomes easier and easier to shoot and kill anyone.

That's why qualified immunity is such a dangerous concept. No punishment is often a reward in and of itself.

[MatthewSlyfield]

If local LEAs* could effectively discipline officers who pull this kind of shit or if local DAs would pursue charges against bad cops where applicable QI wouldn't matter because civil suits wouldn't be necessary.

But since the system won't and/or can't impose consequences on police misconduct, civil suits are the only recourse and QI must end.

*Law Enforcement Agency

[DarthHusker]

If this were reddit, I'd give you an upvote. I don't have anything to add I just wanted to let you know your correct assessment is being read and agreed with.

[Ezra MacVie]

No voting on Reason. Pity.

[Gasman]

"hands up, don't shoot"
How many times does this have to be repeated by the black community before they get it. If anyone in the conduct of their job, police included, are pushed enough, someone is going to make a mistake.
Reaching into your car when a cop has a gun drawn on you is asking for the cop to think you are reaching for a weapon. Maybe you are. Maybe you're not. But why gamble your life on the cop's response.

Hands up, and likely they won't shoot. Reach under the car seat instead, and you are playing russian roulette.

[Trainer]

Except that when you put your hands up, you have to have your hands pass by your waistband. Then we have the "he was reaching for his waistband" scenario.

[NOYB2]

Except that when you put your hands up, you have to have your hands pass by your waistband.

Most human beings are physically able to make snow angels. Those also work standing up, you now.

[CaveMan]

And most cops are gutless cowards who shoot people who are not a threat.

[Nardz]

Thoughtless bigotry is so productive

[Zeb]

That may be good advice. But the cop is still in the wrong. One person's stupidity is not an excuse for another's depravity.

[Crazy mick]

He was nowhere near pulling a gun on the cop.

[voluntaryist]

I didn't see the victim ever look behind. I assume (unless he has eyes in the back of his head) that he didn't know he was being targeted. No audio is presented. Did the cop try to verbally stop him? Maybe. But even if the victim didn't respond, that is not a death sentence, except in a police state.
We live in a police state, therefore fear of police should be universal. It isn't. The public is living in denial, living in a delusional state created by public schools, mainstream media, and cop shows.

[Nardz]

Totes dude!
You're so angsty and rebellious that I'm really inspired.
I bet you even skip home room

[ravenshrike]

Its funnier than that, reaching into your car after the cops have run your name and know your rap sheet is littered with violent felonies and after you already assaulted the officers which is what caused them to pull their guns in the first place once their attempt to tase you failed is a surefire recipe for getting shot.

[KiwiDude]

The suspect "could" have had a nuclear weapon in his car!! That hero saved untold lives, in his own mind.

[Angeline]

●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started. ► Click For Full Detail.

[online jobs]

✔✔✔✔ Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
+++++++++++COPY HERE====??Money90

[CGN]

Cops should NOT have pistols. If a night stick isn't good enough then find another job. Cops are shoot-happy, and ENJOY needless shootings as if it was a game. Send the cops to PRISON (not jail) and see how long it takes their anal region to be as big as the Holland Tunnel, a "stretching" these pieces of shit DESERVE!!!!!

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

That was constructive.

[CaveMan]

Exactly. A side handle baton and proper training would have ended this situation as the guy was walking around his vehicle. Trip the guy then pile on. Give him a poke to the solar plexus and tackle him while he is trying to catch his breath.

I was trained on the use of a PR 24 Side Handle Baton many years ago. Replacing them with tasers has been a major mistake.
Yes, Rodney King got the shit beat out of him, but he lived long enough to drown in his own swimming pool.

[SQRLSY One]

Police state USA is here! You must obey EVERY command of the police-dictators, or they will shoot you! This goes double if you are a black man.

It goes quadruple if you are a black man with dreadlocks!

But Der TrumpfenFuhrer is on the side of "Lawn Order", except if you hire an illegal sub-human to mow your grass, to (illegally) obtain said "lawn order"!

More random police violence is sure to solve the problems!

[Cyto]

That was incoherent.

[Mickey Rat]

Kind of squirrely.

[SQRLSY One]

And that was kinda ratty! But we rodents stick together (at least till the cats catch us or a car runs us over).

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

You really should just commit suicide. Really.

[JesseAz]

quadruple? So your now just blatant ignoring facts and statistics? Sounds right.

[CGN]

Funny how no one is backing up these cops. I can't wait until the go to PRISON and get it up the rear.

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

You sound like that really turns you on.

[Crazy mick]

Contempt of cop is the deadliest crime to commit in the us.

[Granite]

Goddammit sqrlsy I thought you killed yourself - wtf happened?

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I confess that when I saw the video my first thought was "the guy is going for a gun". Of course I can't know that's what was really happening, but neither could the cop.

At the same time, I'll want to know what the cop saw, or thought he saw. It's also possible that he panicked and started firing too soon.

There just isn't enough info to make a realistic judgement, yet. So I'll wait. The rioters should have waited too.

[Cyto]

the error happened long before that moment. That is always the case, it seems. If you only focus on the last few seconds, you miss all the opportunities to turn the incident in another direction.

That being said...

I was playing basketball in the projects in Atlanta one time when an argument broke out over a foul. One guy left angrily and everyone ran. "He is going to get his gun!"

Angry gun dude walked exactly like that guy. And he did pull out a gun.

[Moderation4ever]

Your first thought is he is going for a gun, why? You are surrounded by police holding guns and he would go for a gun. Would that be your first response to go for a gun in this situation? You and too many of the commenters here are trying to find a reason for this and you are not going to do that. This was a stupid, let me say that again stupid thing to happen. Because if police officers can not resolve problems like this without shooting then those people say just rid of the police are probably right. The answer here is not to find a reason for the police officers actions, his lawyers can do that. We need to find a way to stop this from happening.

[Nardz]

Mod, the reason this shit happens is because assholes like you go around spreading the message that personal responsibility is the greatest sin in the world and then decrying any consequences someone might face for their actions if it fits your political formula.
Leftism is waging a psychological war against the notion of cause and effect

[SQRLSY One]

In Nadless Nardless's world, "personal responsibility" means that (most especially if you are a black man with dreadlocks) you MUST obey EVERY command of all police officers, or prepare for the eventuality that you will be shot! It is your "personal responsibility" to obey the police state in ALL matters, great and small! Else, getting shot is YOUR fault!

AND it is the "personal responsibility" of police officers to shoot black men for every possible cause! If they move ANY part of their bodies in ANY way that MIGHT indicate a desire to reach for a weapon, it is the "personal responsibility" of a cop to shoot the black man!

[Cyto]

Tell that to Daniel Shaver.

[Nardz]

Obeying commands of people who have drawn their gun on you is generally prudent.

But it's interesting how racists like you reveal themselves immediately by prioritizing race.

[SQRLSY One]

So let's let all of the gun-pointers take over the world, then!

I invoked race for no reason? Why does BLM exist, and WLM (White Lives Matter) not? Because blacks have all collectively hallucinated police abuse of blacks? What planet does Nadless Nardless come from?

Those of who live in reality, Earth, USA, and are aware of the news, KNOW that police abuse of blacks FAR out-ranks police abuse of whites, and that it is mostly driven by the utterly stupid drug war!

https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war

[Nardz]

So, according to sqrlsy, black people have no agency and should depend on gentry whites like him to pity them and act on their behalf

[SQRLSY One]

So the BLM movement consists mostly of "gentry whites"? The gentry whites brainwash the few mindless zombie dark-skinned people who are active in BLM? Is that what I said?

WHY do you constantly tell us all that the Boogoidian, Smegmoidian Intergalactic Space Aliens are invading your brain via your tinfoil hat? Why don't you just take off your tinfoil hat?

[Think It Through]

"Why does BLM exist, and WLM (White Lives Matter) not? Because blacks have all collectively hallucinated police abuse of blacks?" Basically, yes.

[lmarkus.sergalw]

I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…Pro after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

Here’s what I do…>>……> Click here

[Cyto]

Again, tell that to Daniel Shaver.

Or Jose Guereno.

Or Nicolas Chavez

Or Kelly Thomas

Or Zack Hammond

Or....

[Rockstevo]

White Lives Matter does exist it is called the Communist Party USA. BLM is just a name they put on it so they could intimidate anyone who tries to criticize it.

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

[phone]

[Earth Skeptic]

So what? Police abuse of males FAR FAR FAR out-ranks police abuse of women, so cops must hate males, right. When will you start marching for Male Lives Matter?

[Serial Microaggressor]

Why does BLM exist, and WLM (White Lives Matter) not?
Because white people (and asian people) rarely resist arrest. Maybe those racist cops should just start shooting more asians. For equity's sake.

[Zeb]

Oh, white people resist arrest plenty (though people in general, including blacks rarely resist arrest). And get shot by cops plenty. I think the race difference is really more a class difference. I would bet that a similar number of white people end up in situations like this. It's just a smaller proportion of the overall white population.

[Rastaman]

Its the black drug dealers business model that is their downfall. Cops are lazy, blacks sell drugs to anyone that pulls up in a car with the window down. See where this might be problematic? Now contrast white drug dealers, ask most white drug users where to get drugs and unless they know you they'll say I don't know what you're talking about. Which of these 2 systems do you think will see more arrests?

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

BLM exists to advance a Marxist narrative cloaked in racial division.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In Nadless Nardless’s world, “personal responsibility” means that (most especially if you are a black man with dreadlocks) you MUST obey EVERY command of all police officers, or prepare for the eventuality that you will be shot! "

Look, I'm so white I practically glow in the dark, and I'm bald. I'd I'd have expected to get shot in that situation, if I'd done what he had done. Dark skin and dreadlocks have nothing to do with it.

The reason bald white dudes don't get shot as often as black dudes with dreadlocks, is because we're not stupid enough to ignore a cop holding a gun on us ordering us to stop. It's that simple.

[Shitlord of the Woodchippers]

Squirrely, if you had any sense of personal responsibility, you would apologize for being such an awful, worthless, loathsome, disgusting, exhausting, pedantic, idiotic, vexatious, lazy, shitposting waste of life, and kill yourself.

So just do it. Deep down, you know I’m right.

[Moderation4ever]

What in hell does this have to do with personal responsibility?

[Nardz]

Actions have consequences.
Acting in a threatening manner towards armed men is an action with very predictable consequences.

[SQRLSY One]

Moving away from someone to get into your car is acting in a threatening manner?

Again, what planet did you say you were from?

Why don't you try honesty some time, and say you LOVE the idea of a police state, or a gun-pointer state, where we must all obey anyone who points a gun at us?

[Zeb]

Yes, but that does not excuse the cop's actions. Cops have to deal with idiots all the time. It's part of the job. They need other ways to react to people who do dumb things in difficult situations.

[Nardz]

This isn't like Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck - we don't have nearly enough information to come to any conclusions.
Dude apparently had a knife, had guns drawn on him, then went into his car for unknown reasons (the two most plausible reasons being to either flee or retrieve a weapon).
I know it's easier to get your pubescent ACAB outrage boners on, but it's entirely possible the shooting was justified.
We just don't know yet.

*of course, if you're of the mindset that the Brooks shooting in ATL (after he'd assaulted two cops, stolen their taser, and as he was firing that weapon at them) wasn't justified, then you're just not willing to consider these situations rationally

[CGN]

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? NARDZ apparently has lost his testicles as he posts a moron's comment: zero facts, zero intelligence and probably a until smaller than a tooth pick.

[Nardz]

Aww, look at the little leftist overcompensating

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I wouldn't have been walking away from the cops in the first place, and no, I wouldn't go for a gun. But why does that mean that nobody else would? It happens, believe it or not. Some people display poor judgement under stress. It's possible that Mr. Blake did. It's possible the cop did. We don't know yet.

As I said before, I am withholding judgement until more information is available. You should try it.

[DJK]

This is far too level-headed. We must riot instead.

[Jury Nullification]

"... I am withholding judgement until more information is available. "

No, you are not witholding judgement, just a conclusive finger pointing.

[ducksalad]

If someone walks away from him, he thinks they're going for a gun.

If someone walks towards him, he thinks they're trying to grab his gun.

If someone stands still, he thinks they're trying to do both.

[DJK]

There were nine police killings of unarmed black people in 2019. Nine. That's such a statistically insignificant number that it's absolutely impossible to make any of the generalizations you're trying to draw. But go ahead and push your statistically unfounded narrative.

[Juice]

Unarmed is the wrong metric. Technically Philando Castille was armed.

[DJK]

Unarmed is the focus that the media and the left love. Go ahead and add cases like Castille's. It's still a minuscule number.

[Rossami]

There's one inference we can reliably draw. Nine is still nine too many.

Here's an even more reliable inference. Qualified Immunity means that we will never have the trials we need to find out which (if any) of those shootings were justified.

[Brett Bellmore]

We don't know if 9 is too many, until we know what the tradeoff for reducing it below 9 would be.

[Ron]

it wouldn't be the first time that some one surrounded by cops holding guns went for a gun. Hence the precautionairy action

[darkflame]

I don't know, because this shit happens? Why did Hakim Littleton decide to pull a .25 cal on a squad of cops in bodyarmor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr7WtmM1-XE&bpctr=1598285601

And if you wonder why cops are probably a little more jumpy now, it's because there are mobs of people trying to injure and kill them, while the local governments in most place won't back them up, or actively help those people. So yeah, the cops are probably on edge and aren't willing to risk themselves being the ones who don't go home at the end of the night. Guy was not responding to cops and trying to get in the car... which would make sense if he was going for a gun.

Doesn't make it a good shoot, i'll wait for all the details before i pass judgement, but what the cops did does have logic behind it besides "let's shoot the black dude"

[Trainer]

I think you may have the cause and effect backwards on this.

[Nardz]

I think you might be psychotic

[I, Woodchipper]

I think you might be a cop lover.

[Nardz]

As irrationally bigoted as you seem to be, anyone who doesn't automatically hate all people in a chosen class must love them

[Serial Microaggressor]

I never had much sympathy for cops, until this year when an unjustified hate campaign was waged against them and now they're expected to let black people (sorry, Black) kill them in order to not be considered racist.

[Jury Nullification]

"… which would make sense if he was going for a gun (if he was suicidal or Tony Montana) or trying to get the away from violence prone fuckers pointing guns at him and wanting to put someone in jail." FTFY

There should be a little more to the process of executing someone under the color of law, like an actual recognizable threat and not a just a pant shitting training video scenario or that it makes sense.

Remember, this was a domestic violence call and someone was likely going to jail and maybe he did not have the time or money to burn.

"Note about Mandatory Arrest Law

Wisconsin has a mandatory arrest law in response to domestic abuse incidents in which circumstances requiring an arrest are present (Wis. Stat. § 968.075(2))."

https://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/bjia/domestic-abuse-data

[Nardz]

Wait - your argument is "Blake didn't want to go to jail so any action he takes is justified"???

[Gasman]

Your first thought is he is going for a gun, why? You are surrounded by police holding guns and he would go for a gun

Hard to say what he was going for with certainty. "Hands up, don't get shot" would have been a more effective life sustaining strategy than reaching under the driver's seat for.... something.

[Hank Phillips]

Eradicate victimless crime laws and cop unions and require martial arts training instead of shooting at everything black that moves. Better yet, VOTE libertarian and let the defeated looters struggle to figure what we mean by non-aggression.

[mlwjr]

well because he had already assaulted the cops and been tased? I don't think he would be going into his car for a cigarette?!

[Brandybuck]

> It’s also possible that he panicked and started firing too soon.

You never fire too soon. Wait until the unarmed man is inside the vehicle before shooting him seven times in the back.

[Scott Free2016]

I agree, cops shouldn't be overly aggressive but they're not required to commit suicide either. I don't see a guy breaking up a fight, I see a guy disobeying orders from the police and going into a vehicle where he could easy have a weapon.

If the cop shoots once, this is a little less of an issue, I don't understand the 'empty your mag every time' thing, but we don't know all the facts yet.

[DJK]

A gun fight is not the choreographed dance that Hollywood makes it out to be. In real life, adrenaline is surging and panic instincts take over. This makes you essentially lose all fine motor control and it's just gross movements that are possible. This all leads to a ton of missed shots, even at close range. Firing a single round in a gunfight is a really good way to get yourself killed. This is why every tactical firearms instructor recommends using a firearm with as large a magazine as possible.

[Ron]

they are trained to empty their mag every time and that is the problem, training. I have a friend who teaches police and he's proud of teaching them to empty their mag within 3 seconds, thats full auto speed

[darkflame]

like Ron said, partly it's training. There's multiple reasons for this, first, one bullet usually isn't enough to stop someone, especially if they're hyped up on shit. Donut Operator on youtube has footage of a guy charging a female cop with a knife, the cop puts nine 9mm rounds into him before he goes down. You don't know how many rounds someone's gonna take, and if they're trying to kill you, you don't wanna take the chance.

Secondly, there's always gonna be an inquiry into an officer involved shooting. It's easier to buy that the officer was in fear for his life when he dumps the whole mag.

Thirdly, as DJK said, gunfights aren't choreographed, and when you're hyped up on adrenaline, you get dumb shit like that that Fedex hostage situation in Florida earlier this year, where the cops just blasted the fuck out of the truck in the middle of rush hour traffic, ultimately killing the fedex driver as well as the suspect.

[Gray_Jay]

UPS, but yeah. That shooting should have been criminally charged.

This one shouldn't.

[A Thinking Mind]

I think it's also evidence of herd mentality in that case. One or two cops in that situations get in the mindset of being heroes, so they start approaching the car in a shit situation, and so many other cops just followed and set up a massive crossfire in the middle of traffic.

It's so rare for most cops to actually encounter a hostage situation that they're really poorly trained to deal with them. It's too far outside of their expertise.

[Gray_Jay]

They sprayed and prayed, with depraved indifference or reckless disregard for the fate of the hostage or any of the poor bastards sitting in the traffic jam downrange, and they ended up killing one of those people along with the hostage.

Fuck those cops. Manslaughter for everyone, if I were King.

[Nardz]

Yea, no excuse for that one.

Odd that it didn't become a bigger story...

[MatthewSlyfield]

" It’s easier to buy that the officer was in fear for his life when he dumps the whole mag."

Not when he dumps it into the suspect's back at point blank range.

[I, Woodchipper]

I see a guy disobeying orders from the police and going into a vehicle where he could easy have a weapon.

This is not grounds for summary execution. Period. End of story. How can anyone support the idea of living under a this kind of police state?

yes, it's POSSIBLE he was going to pull out a gun. it's the cops' JOB to not just kill anyone who could be a threat. They are there to DEAL WITH threats. So, until the man is actually a threat and actually wielding a gun, the cops' job is to NOT kill him on the spot because he just might end getting a gun out.

Otherwise a cop can just kill anyone they want at any time and shrug "I thought he might have had a gun"

This is in fact, what has happened to Philando Castile after he helpfully informed the cop he had a permit and gun in the car during a traffic stop. Blam blam blam. He might use the gun is the excuse i guess?

This is not a free society that allows and encourages this. You should be ashamed of yourself if you do.

[Nardz]

I'm guessing you're living in pure fantasy.
How much personal experience do you have with this "police stste"?
How many times have you been cuffed and thrown in a cage with nothing but your own thoughts and concrete walls?
Have you had cops steal from you? Have you had their guns drawn on you?
I'm guessing you have not.
Always easy to be outraged by the imaginary.
Makes you feel righteous, doesn't it?

[Gray_Jay]

Philando Castile was high, and the dumbfuck kept his credentials in the same pocket as his weapon. And kept reaching for it, even after Yanez turned from Officer Friendly to Officer 'Put That Fucking Gun Down Now!' Probably because he was high.

Don't touch a weapon after a cop yells at you not too.

[Hank Phillips]

Heck, he might have been going for a tactical nuclear weapon! That lazy untrained redneck cop "might possibly" have saved the entire town from annihilation. Or suppose he'd been reaching for the latest Red Chinese version of Bubonic Plague 3.0? Or cannibal saliva, the killer weed? You never know about these things. Best to shoot first and ask for fake coroners' reports later, and to hell with physical fitness and jiu-jitsu workouts.

[Jefferson Voltaire]

These two digit IQ jackasses are trained, to panic first and worry about human life & justice later, if ever.
Police dept's fought a court battle for the right to preferentially hire lower IQ imbeciles over more intelligent, more qualified applicants.
That said, where was the entire neighborhood when he needed them??? They need to outnumber and stand down the municipal terrorists *before* people are murdered.
STILL nobody going after public enemy No.1, the B.A.R. Association, which set up this entire shooting match with "qualified immunity" in the first place. The puppet masters replacing constitutional law with statutory policy. They're all sitting back laughing in their mansions while Rome burns.

[ThomasD]

My first thought was "the guy knows he has outstanding warrants and is leaving."

My first observation is that the cop already has his pistol pointed at the guy for the mere act of walking away.

That, IMO, is criminal assault. It also meant he only had one hand free to physically restrain the guy.

Stupid.

[Trainer]

This!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's not criminal assault. Geeze, this is a law blog already. If you have an arrest warrant out for you, the police tell you to stop, and you walk away, it's not criminal assault for the police to point a gun at you and repeat the order. They're actually allowed to threaten violence to arrest you!

[Cyto]

Ok, they are going to claim "going for a weapon" as a reason for shooting him.

No chance I vote to acquit if I am on that jury based on what I see.

Dude is ignoring commands, obviously. Probably because he is angry and feels unjustly accused if the "breaking up a fight between 2 women" is to be believed.

But you have 2 guys and you can do more than shoot tasers and guns.

That was insane.

If he was really so worried about the car he should have done more to block access. Drawing a gun on someone should not be done so cavalierly.

As is usual, this shooting was probably set up by a failure very early in the process. Based on the story provided, I can imagine the officers arriving to find a dude shuffling with two women and immediately focusing on placing him into custody instead of finding out what happened. Everything goes downhill from there. They have tunnel vision and he won't comply because they are not listening, which doesn't engender trust.

[Roberta]

They were already pointing guns at him while following him around the car. What kind of procedure is that? If they thought he was dangerous, there are so many other things they could've done before even drawing guns, it's ridiculous. If you follow someone like that who turns out to be "going for a gun", you deserve to be shot! Certainly the one who's being followed, who has no idea what's going on behind his back, doesn't need to be shot. If he were psychic, what could he possibly have done to keep from being shot — turn around and face them?

[Hoot Smawley]

They were already pointing guns at him while following him around the car. What kind of procedure is that?

That depends heavily on what happened before the video clip started rolling. The guy was storming off, so obviously something happened before the video was shot...we just don't know what yet. We don't know what the suspect said or did, we don't know what the officers did or said. The only thing we see is a guy storming off to his vehicle, disregarding police commands, and it ended in a shooting.

There's a lot more that needs to be heard before we automatically assign guilt to anyone.

[Trainer]

You misspelled "victim." I have not seen or heard anything that he did besides walk away from the police that would make him a suspect of any crime.

[Hoot Smawley]

Actually, he had open arrest warrants, including one for felony sexual assault related to domestic violence. And a history of criminal activity involving firearms, as well as prior confrontations with police.

Next time try doing any research at all before you argue with me.

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000736&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details

[Ron]

And don't be too surprised to find the fight he was breaking up was between his two hoes I mean employess

[I, Woodchipper]

And this justifies summary execution by the police state?

[Trainer]

It still doesn't give the officer the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

[Hoot Smawley]

Repeating that line like a parrot doesn't make your argument any less stupid.

You're wrong and nobody's buying your bullshit. Go cry into your pillow about it.

[Zeb]

Actually, he had open arrest warrants,

Did the police know that before they shot him? If not, it's totally and completely irrelevant. If they were trying to arrest him for outstanding warrants, that might change some things.

[Gray_Jay]

That's the 64 dollar question, isn't it Zeb? It would be nice to know whether they knew about his warrants.

That said, it does go towards explaining Bruce's conduct---he was a violent criminal who didn't want to go back to jail---so it's not totally irrelevant. Again though, resisting suspect, armed with knife, headed to driver's seat in car full of kids, equals deadly force from cop to stop any and all of that.

[Gray_Jay]

And it's Blake, not Bruce. Sorry.

[Zeb]

No, if the police didn't know about it, then it is irrelevant to an analysis of whether use of force was appropriate in this particular situation.
It does perhaps explain why he behaved as he did. But that by itself has no bearing on what was appropriate action from the police.

[Gray_Jay]

We're agreeing, I think.

Turns out the initial police call was about him, not two women fighting, and that the cops were told en route that Blake had warrants for his arrest. https://madison365.com/kenohsa-police-opened-fire-less-than-5-minutes-after-being-called-scanner-audio/

It would have been great if the idiots running Kenosha had thought to get those tidbits out to the media before part of their city burned down. At this point, I don't think you can totally blame incompetence for these failures.

[Jury Nullification]

"Next time try doing any research at all before you argue with me."

Yeah, tell us how you researched that the cops actually knew all that before shooting him or is it just irrelevant after the fact bs to bolster your argument.

[Nardz]

Was he under arrest?
Was he armed?

[subpatre]

Yes.

[Hoot Smawley]

@Null...police have computer systems in their vehicles as standard issue that allow them to run individuals' names to determine if there are outstanding warrants. That's been the case for a couple of decades. They can get the information within minutes, and it is standard for them to check whenever they encounter an incident like this.

Have you never fucking watched an episode of "Cops"? This is common knowledge.

[Hoot Smawley]

Seriously, what do you think the police are doing when they pull you over? They're running your identity through their system to determine if there are any outstanding warrants out on you.

That is so fucking standard that you should be embarrassed that you even had to ask that question about whether they knew he had an outstanding arrest warrant. Of course they knew...because that's a basic, everyday part of their job. Maybe you should do any research at all about police work before you ever express an opinion on the subject again.

[markm23]

How would the cops have known this guy's name before they got out of their cars?

[Gray_Jay]

The initial call for police was about Blake. The officers were told to arrest him, and that he had warrants. https://madison365.com/kenohsa-police-opened-fire-less-than-5-minutes-after-being-called-scanner-audio/

[Hoot Smawley]

Incidentally, it's now come out that Blake had open arrest warrants for domestic abuse, including felony sexual assault, and a history of violent confrontations involving firearms, as well as hostile confrontations with police. He was likely being arrested for the warrants.

So the police had reasonable suspicion that he was going for a gun, given his actions immediately preceding the shooting as well as his own criminal history.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/jacob-blake/

[A Thinking Mind]

What's the awareness of police of the man's criminal history in that situation, though? That's also relevant. They don't get a pass if they just got lucky.

[Brett Bellmore]

They didn't get lucky, they were sent to arrest him on the outstanding warrants.

[Gray_Jay]

Cyto, the guy had a knife. The guy also has multiple warrants out for sex abuse, burglary, and DV. He had already been Tased, to no effect. He had two cops with guns out, screaming at him to stop, and not go into a car with---allegedly---three children in it.

Post Deputy Dinkheller, cops aren't going to let an armed suspect reach into a vehicle. Whether there's actually a weapon in the vehicle or not. And especially when he might be trying to drive off with three kids in the car.

As usual, Davis tells less than half the story, in order to push a desired narrative.

[Trainer]

None of that gives the police the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

[Gray_Jay]

He's not judge, jury, and executioner. He's telling a guy with a knife, who had been Tased already by another officer, to not get into a vehicle with children in it. Whether to escape, go for a gun, start sticking the kids, whatever. The cops are allowed to do that. They are allowed to use deadly force to stop someone from doing any of the above. Use of force is ugly. Even if justified.

And if the genius had complied with the lawful order, he'd be walking out of jail now, on double secret probation.

[Hoot Smawley]

Actually, yes it does. They're allowed to defend themselves with lethal force when there is reasonable suspicion that an arrestee is armed and dangerous and ready to attack them...and there was ample reasonable suspicion.

[Zeb]

That may be part of the problem. Am I allowed to shoot someone based on my own judgement of reasonable suspicion that someone has a weapon and means to harm me? I don't think I'd take that chance unless I really had to. A big problem, in my view, is police being given more benefit of the doubt than non-police. The standards for self defense killing should be the same.

[subpatre]

That's why there's federal and state mandated academy training followed by state (and federal?) mandated OJ training; to outline the circumstances when lethal force is justified or not.

Cops -- following training-- do get some benefit of doubt because they are acting inside the scope of courts' rulings.

[Jerryskids]

Witnesses also said that officers attempted to use a Taser before shooting Blake

Jesus Fucking Christ, you're gonna make me defend the cops here? There are several cops trailing the guy with their weapons drawn and the guy is totally ignoring them and then tries getting in his car? You have to assume that the guy is high as fuck or on drugs or something, is he getting in his car to get his gun? What the fuck is he doing? Maybe shooting him in the back 7 times is a tad excessive, but when the guy is showing no regard whatsoever for his own safety, you kinda have to suspect he probably has no regard for yours either.

[Cyto]

Let's make a list of "how could we have handled this better" starting at the front of the car with a guy resisting arrest without violence and ignoring commands.

1.. dont draw a gun. Once you draw a gun, you are on a path to lethal force with little opportunity for departure.

2. The taser missed. It still works as a stun gun. Use it as one.

3. You have a partner. The suspect has his back turned. You can easily start a neck hold or go low and tackle him from behind. Your partner is available to assist and has a taser.

4. Block the car door with your body. Holding a gun has precluded this option. This underscores why the gun was not the best tool.

5. Grab a handful of dreads as he tries to enter the car instead of a finger full of shirt.

I am sure there were a myriad of options that were better than pulling a gun to force compliance and then repeatedly shooting him in the back because you were afraid he was going for a gun.

That being said, he did enter the car in a manner that suggested that he was getting something rather than getting in to leave.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, there needs to be a policy that the nearest officer doesn't draw their weapon. Gun in one hand, suspect or pretty much any animate object in the other is a recipe for accidental or "accidental" discharge.

And, I stick to the stance that, outside a gunfight, more than 3 shots is panic fire.

[Brandybuck]

Seven shots. No way in hell is that anything other than murder. If you panic that's two or three shots at the post. More than that and it's deliberate. The fourth and subsequent pulls are conscious and willful acts.

[Hoot Smawley]

So if it was six then it would be fine? How about if it was just one? Would you be cool with that? What if the guy told them he was going for his gun? Is it okay for the cops to shoot him then? Or should they just wait for him to pull a gun on them?

There are a lot of questions to be asked about what happened in that confrontation. And people like you are utterly worthless in that regard because you're emotional idiots who fixate on the least important aspects of the story and rapidly assign guilt based on that without bothering to think it through.

[ThomasD]

The only number than matter is one. Either the first shot is justified or it is not. Because once you start shooting you keep shooting until the target ceases doing whatever it is that justified the shooting.

And, to be pedantically clear Brandy, I am not saying this shooting was justified.

[mad.casual]

Because once you start shooting you keep shooting until the target ceases doing whatever it is that justified the shooting.

How many more bullets would it have taken to get him out of the car?

[mad.casual]

If you need something to make the subject stop immediately, why did you choose a tool that requires 7 applications before being effective?

[Gray_Jay]

"If you need something to make the subject stop immediately, why did you choose a tool that requires 7 applications before being effective?"

Because it's all they have? Because you guys would bitch even louder if the cop had used a shotgun or patrol rifle to stop the guy?

[mad.casual]

Because it’s all they have? Because you guys would bitch even louder if the cop had used a shotgun or patrol rifle to stop the guy?

You second sentence contradicts your first. And that's if you ignore the falsely narrowed set of options.

[Gray_Jay]

Mad, they don't have a tool that will stop a guy like Blake with less than seven applications. Not anymore. Their sticks, chokeholds, saps, police nunchakus, what have you, have all been taken away from them. Blows to the head---not that I'm getting that close to a guy armed with, again, a knife---also are a No Go. Blake had shrugged off a Taser, or it just missed, already.

Running out of choices to prevent Knife Guy from getting in a car with kids, and turning this into either a high speed chase with kids in the car or a two way shootout, aren't we? Patrol rifle would have stopped him before seven shots, but again, not like it would have gone over any better here.

[A Thinking Mind]

Jesus Christ, this is such a dumb position. I keep forgetting that there are real people who will say this shit.

[mad.casual]

So if it was six then it would be fine? How about if it was just one? Would you be cool with that? What if the guy told them he was going for his gun? Is it okay for the cops to shoot him then? Or should they just wait for him to pull a gun on them?

For quite some time, the FBI and LEOs trained on 2-3 shots, it's how the special forces do it. Spraying a half-dozen or more rounds is for well-supplied military forces fighting at range, through cover, against combative targets. 7 rounds at close range, he wasn't placing his shots, evaluating what was beyond his target, he was just squeezing the trigger until he felt it was OK to stop.

[Gray_Jay]

The Special Forces use pistols? Not usually, though Delta (or CAG or whatever else they're calling themselves now) do or did. SF guys use rifles. Rifles stop people with two three shots. Pistols often don't, unless you hit them in the head.

The assaulters who used pistols also shot a truly ridiculous amount of ammo per guy per year, and basically did nothing but run shoot house exercises day in day out. It's not practical to expect that kind of combat marksmanship from cops who aren't HRT guys.

The questions to ask about deadly force use are before it gets used. Once a lawful decision to use deadly force to stop a fleeing, armed suspect occurred (and felon, though I doubt the cops knew that at the time), then it's going to be hard if not impossible to determine in most of these situations whether the acts of deadly force occurred after it appeared to a reasonable officer committing those acts that the suspect was actually stopped.

[mad.casual]

I didn't say the SF use pistols. They use rifles because they may have to engage targets out several hundred yards and face opposition that's similarly equipped. Police virtually never have to engage opposition at that range and, save a few rare exceptions, are virtually always bringing superior firepower to bear with 2-3 men with handguns.

Moreover, from the DOD to the FBI to civilian sources like Marshall & Sandow, one shot stops are not unheard of for .22 lr (~25%), become common at .38 (~60%), and plateau at 90+% at 9 mm and more powerful. The case where a perp absorbs 2 full stacks of .45 ACP +P and keeps coming is between rare exception and myth. More often it's like this case where, at point blank, 1-2 shots should've absolutely stopped the target and the additional 5 shots just go to show that it's time for you to hang up your badge.

then it’s going to be hard if not impossible to determine in most of these situations whether the acts of deadly force occurred after it appeared to a reasonable officer committing those acts that the suspect was actually stopped.

It's not hard. The data's there. I've shown it to you. Let me ask a couple questions the other way:
1. How many shots would've been excessive? 15? 30?
2. Whatever number you provide above, does it intellectually make sense to you to expect no actual discipline or talent from officers and simply instruct them to apply MOAR = BETTER/POLICE HARDER = BETTER principle?

[Gray_Jay]

M&S are not reliable sources. Nor is their work particularly rigorous. It's garbage, frankly.

As to what's excessive, the question to ask is, "What did it take to stop him?" This is something different for every potential use of deadly force. Guy has a suicide vest? He's not stopped until you see brains. Maybe not even then. Armed with a handgun? Not stopped until he drops the thing. Knife? Is he still moving? Does he still have control of the knife? Does the assailant manifest a desire to surrender at any point? Etc...

It can take a lot of wounds to achieve a physiological stop through loss of blood pressure. It can take having the officer draw and point the weapon at the threat to achieve a stop. And lots in between.

The main decision is whether or not to use deadly force in the first place. If the initial use of deadly force is legitimate, bitching about whether the officer should have tried stopping the imminent threat of deadly force against her with three shots in two seconds, instead of seven in three, is silly. Courts won't, nor should they, try to parse things that finely.

Make it 10-15, over the course of 15 seconds, like the McDonald shooting I mentioned, and courts will now ask about whether the officer kept shooting after the threat was stopped. As Officer Jason Van Dyke found to his sorrow.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of people don't understand that a shot in one place can drop you in your tracks, a half dozen shots in different places can leave you pissed off and mobile for a few minutes.

Gun shot wounds are really lousy for incapacitating people rapidly, short of killing them outright.

[Hoot Smawley]

Once the suspect is dead, it makes literally no difference how many more rounds you put into him.

If he's going for a weapon, however, and you don't shoot him fatally because you fired too few shots, he's going to get to shoot back at you, and that's why police err on the side of caution.

They're shooting to kill once they pull the trigger, not to wound. It's entirely reasonable to empty the magazine into a suspect to ensure that outcome, particularly if there's little chance of a stray hitting someone else (as was the case in this instance, where any rounds that missed would likely be stopped by the car).

[mad.casual]

Once the suspect is dead, it makes literally no difference how many more rounds you put into him.

He's not dead, so maybe the guy should've fired a few more shots, eh?

[kcuch]

No. Now they have a witness to determine which of the rounds paralyzed him. A lot different in the payouts and punishments arenas if it was #9 that slowed down his criminal career or #1.

[ThomasD]

"it’s how the special forces do it."

Not for a very long time. Now they engage until the target drops or they are signaled by the guy behind to move on to the next target.

[mad.casual]

Not for a very long time.

What's "very long"? Between the varying stories of OBL's execution, nobody personally claims to have shot him more than twice and that's with the HK416s.

[Gray_Jay]

Not pistols. Rifles. They do radically different things on people.

Not that I think DEVGRU stopped at shooting OBL once or twice...

[mad.casual]

Not pistols. Rifles.

No shit, you mean like a German-made M4 clone? That's probably why I said HK 416s, huh?

Not that I think DEVGRU stopped at shooting OBL once or twice…

Well, if you're operating on foreign soil it might be handy to have a couple extra rounds in the chamber at the end of the day. Especially if you've got to bury the corpse before you leave. When you need more, you can't wish them out of a corpse, that's for sure.

[Gray_Jay]

Genius, you're the guy who brought up SF---for what fucking reason, I've no idea---and their alleged use of ammunition policy.

All I'm telling you is that rifles make qualitatively different wounds in people than do pistols. Plus they're easier to make hits with. Two or three shots with a rifle---or even one---have a greater chance of stopping a determined armed assailant than seven random or even COM hits from a handgun. They're that different.

We carry handguns because they're easy to hide, not because they're particularly effective.

[JeremyR]

Special forces train constantly. Police train maybe once a year.

[mad.casual]

And?

If you're going to walk around drawing weapons on people in life or death situations in service of the public, is it absurd to expect, what, monthly training?

[Gray_Jay]

"Seven shots. No way in hell is that anything other than murder. If you panic that’s two or three shots at the post. More than that and it’s deliberate. The fourth and subsequent pulls are conscious and willful acts."

Brandy, you don't know what you don't know. First, is the guy even dead? Last I heard he was in the hospital, but still alive.

Second, and this may go against everything TV has taught you, handguns are awful at immediately stopping a determined attacker or at actually killing people. Cops know this, which is why they often shoot so many times. The large capacity and easy trigger pull of modern service semiautomatic pistols make it easier to keep shooting until the guy drops. Whether or not it looks bad on video, as the Laquon McDonald shooting near Chicago will tell you.

It sometimes takes 7, or more, hits with a handgun to stop an attacker. Or to stop a guy from reaching into a car for something, maybe even another weapon.

[Ron]

there was that soldier who got shot 27 times and walked away after dealing with his attackers. some people are just unstopable

[mad.casual]

Cops know this, which is why they often shoot so many times.

No they don't. See above. Little-to-no training and persistent advice to pull the trigger until the slide stops. Better officers and men on the front lines know and will tell you as much and have since the 30s and before. Unless, somehow, cocaine and PCP suddenly got more potent in the 70s and 80s?

It's just like COVID nonsense (if not worse). Everybody knows a guy who heard of a guy who worked with a guy on a force who shot some dude 12 times before he stopped. So now, despite the fact that heart attacks and getting run over by cars kill more officers, every officer along the chain who heard the story is convinced they need to carry 3 backup magazines on them at all times... and wear a mask.

[Gray_Jay]

Mad, go read a little on terminal ballistics from handgun wounds, as well as typical survival rates from handgun wounds, and a wounded person's typical time of remaining useful activity after being shot. Vincent DiMaio's "Gunshot Wounds" is a great text for the former. There's a decent M&M talk from a surgeon on youtube for the second point. Finally, take a look at gunfight case histories: Miami 1986, North Hollywood, heck even the attempted assassination of Truman, for the last point.

None of which has anything to do with whatever intoxicant the threat had in their system. You write like someone who's been fed a lot of bullshit about what guns to do to people, and I'm trying to show you some resources that will give you better information.

[JesseAz]

Do you even recognize the catch 22 officers are now in?

Use restraint holds: Floyd
Use tasers: Brooks

The media has basically eliminated all actions from a police. There is a reason there is a ton of confusion for cops at the moment.

No, this shooting was bad. But let's not pretend that the attacks against police are having no part in this.

[Cyto]

I have to agree....

You could definitely posit a scenario where they were afraid to escalate their efforts to effect their intended detention with use of physical violence with such a large audience and a background of anti-police riots.

We have seen many videos where police fail to take appropriate action early and lose control of a situation. The case of the jaywalking teenage girl in Seattle comes to mind, where the officer did an extremely weak attempt at physically controlling a much smaller target, resulting in much more violence than was necessary. Or the Wendy's drunk driver incident, where police were caught off-guard when an otherwise cooperative drunk driver suddenly resisted with extreme passion and they had difficulty responding at the same level quickly.

[darkflame]

don't forget, if they do nothing and the guy assaults them, there's a good chance of the guy walking depending if the local DA is a BLM supporter, and they'll have no support no matter what the situation

You've got angry groups of people calling "All cops are bastards, all cops must die". They're on edge and can't count on the government to have their back if it's a good shoot. A lot of cops have probably decided that they're going home no matter what, and they aren't taking any risks, especially for people who hate them.

Doesn't necessarily make it a good shoot, but it does explain the reaction.

[Trainer]

Once again, you have the cause and effect backwards.

[A Thinking Mind]

The effects and causes can actually compile on top of each other. It's part of why the current atmosphere is so toxic.

[Dariush]

“ No, this shooting was bad...”

I disagree JesseAz. I’m presuming the rocket scientist was under arrest or at least being detained. In that condition you are legally not allowed to leave unless law enforcement says so. There is no way in hell you can walk away with a gun trained on you, go to your car and go for something or have the appearance of going for something without the expectation of getting shot. The cop shot until Einstein stopped moving which is SOP for any shoot, shoot till the threat stops. All the idiots setting their hair on fire over 7 shots haven’t seen shit. A very common service weapon, like a Glock 17, will likely have a mag that holds 17 +1. He could have mag dumped on that piece of shit and still had at least 2 other magazines on his belt ready go within seconds. The cop did as he was trained. I’m sure some sloped headed idiot poster will decry police procedure but that’s another discussion.

[DJK]

Numbers 1-4 aren't horrible ideas, though I can imagine a number of scenarios that make them unreasonable. We should probably hold our judgment until additional video inevitably comes out. Snap judgments are how you get riots that turn out to be completely unfounded.

But #5? Grab a handful of dreads? This isn't a serious suggestion, right? Fine motor control typically disappears in these sorts of fight or flight situations.

[Jefferson Voltaire]

You forgot option #1, don't call the municipal terrorists to come and escalate a cat fight into a municipal assassination.
So, two women were fighting, he was breaking it up, other people could have stepped in and helped break it up, then helped mediate it and everyone could have walked away. No cops needed in the first place. The person that called them is complicit in what they did.
For forty years now, calling the cops has only ever made everything worse but people still do it every time.

[DJK]

There are so many assumptions in your comment it's ridiculous. Some people say he was breaking up the fight. He may or may not have been. But to cops who show up and see a man engaged in a physical altercation with women, what's the basic reaction? What did the caller who phoned the altercation into 911 (if there was one) say was happening? What did the dispatcher (if there was one) say? The police had their weapons drawn. They may have done so because they justly saw this dude as a violent threat. All or none of these may be true. The point is that it's a really bad idea to make a ton of assumptions based on a few seconds of video.

[kcuch]

But to cops who show up and see a man engaged in a physical altercation with women, what’s the basic reaction?

White privilege and cishetero societal constructs require giving reparations to people with clubs and bricks?

Do I win?

[JesseAz]

Cannon hinnant is not worth mentioning based on the claims the shooter was arrested. So when the cop is arrested I expect this story to disappear.

[Union of Concerned Socks]

That's all well and good, but what does the union say?

[SQRLSY One]

The police union says that they will needlessly behave like pre-teen children, and throw rocks at the giant hornet's nest. They can't help it; it has to be done in the name of "officer safety".

And then when (totally predictably) the hornets swarm all over everyone in the neighborhood... AKA, rioting and looting and arson in the middle of the night... All the officers will stand by (or stay at home safe and sound, call in sick, etc.) and do nothing, to convince all of the Trumpistas that we need MORE power and pay for the police, to keep us all safe!

[Cyto]

Another incoherent post. Maybe go have a coffee and a muffin?

[JesseAz]

Bran muffins would get him what he wants.

[SQRLSY One]

Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to [e-mail] .

Thank You! -Reason Staff

[Jefferson Voltaire]

Where were all the hornets to keep the municipal terrorists from killing this guy in the first place?
Why weren't the hornets keeping their own nest in order when two "women" resorted to punching each other to resolve a dispute?

[Jerry B.]

Another Black man gunned down in a Democrat-led city.

Will they ever learn that Democrats don't care about them, except on election day?

[Tony]

All cities are Democrat-run you ridiculous mindless parrot.

[Dariush]

“ All cities are Democrat-run you ridiculous mindless parrot.”

And like that, it flies right over your bowl shaped skull.

[Tony]

I think I understand. Democrats run cities so Republicans don’t have to pay any attention to the problem and in fact should be praised for being cop-sucking cunts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you're half right: Democrats run cities so they own the problems there. On the day the Republicans run the cities you can start blaming them for what happens in cities.

[Earth Skeptic]

The fuck? Kenosha cops need the Barney Fife rule: every officer gets one bullet that they have to keep in their pocket.

[DJK]

That's a good way to get a lot of officers killed. It's also a good way to get a lot of civilians killed when the officers show up to, say, a domestic disturbance and either miss with their single shot or never get a chance to load it.

[darkflame]

or when the cops more likely say, fuck this, i'm not showing up to anything that sounds like it's dangerous.

[Gray_Jay]

"Or when the cops more likely say, fuck this, i’m not showing up to anything that sounds like it’s dangerous."

This is what is actually going to happen. Don't bitch when the violent crime rate skyrockets.

[darkflame]

Yep. My parents are trying to get the fuck out of Charleston SC right now. It hasn't been making the news, but BLM's been harassing and attacking people there too. And for some fucking reason, the cops seem to be rolling over and letting them do it. Part of it is because we've gotten so many NY & NJ assholes migrating down there, and now they're trying to do the same thing to Charleston that they did to their own shithole cities.

[I, Woodchipper]

Please.

[Spiritus Mundi]

There were not many POCs in Mayberry.

[Fist of Etiquette]

He was getting into his car after apparently breaking up a fight between two women.

He stopped violence without shooting everyone? No wonder police were confused and frightened about what kind of creature was walking away from them.

[Cyto]

Cutting and insightful, as usual.

[DJK]

Or police showed up to a situation where a man was involved in a physical altercation with women, assumed he was the threat because he's far more physically capable, and then freaked out when a dude they already assumed was exhibiting violence failed to follow lawful instructions and tried to grab something from his weapon.

That's not necessarily what happened, but it's certainly plausible based on the extremely limited evidence we have so far. It's probably best to reserve judgment to keep yourself from looking like an absolute fool when more information inevitably comes out.

[Hoot Smawley]

Or he had a violent criminal history and an outstanding arrest warrant for felony sexual assault, the police established that, attempted to make an arrest, he resisted and tried to escape, and got shot when he made a move that looked an awful lot like someone going for a gun.

Which is both plausible and seems based on the evidence to be the case.

[The New Number Two]

"He stopped violence without shooting everyone?"

Must've used some spooky African witchcraft.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Oh good, more riots this Summer.

[jmg09]

Serious question for the BLM supporters.

Why don't we talk about Daniel Shaver or Ryan Whitaker?

Whitaker was shot in the back and killed. He broke zero laws and complied with police requests.

Shaver was murdered while on his hands and knees, crying and begging for his life.

Neither case saw justice for the killers. Shaver's murderer is collecting disability checks.

Why is it that we don't talk about them?

[Brandybuck]

Daniel Shaver's case is still open. The officer convicted. And it was four years ago. Whitaker was... armed.

You're just cherry picking white victims in an effort to distract us from the fact that police are disproportionately violent towards Blacks. That does not mean they aren't also scum to those of other races.

And the big spark for the BLM protests was an actual video of cops deliberately murdering a man by choking him to death, combined with dozens of eye witnesses at the scene.

You're an idiot if you think some White dude stepping out of his apartment holding a gun is equivalent to shooting an unarmed Black man seven times in the back. Fuck you.

[jmg09]

"Fuck you."

Is that necessary?

1. Daniel Shaver's killer was not convicted. I don't know where you got that information.
2. Last I checked, we're allowed to legally carry firearms. Whitaker was shot in the back. He did nothing illegal and complied with officer's demands.
3. I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm asking why we aren't talking about the larger issue of poorly trained, unaccountable, militarized police.
4. If we could magically rid the world of racism, we would still have people murdered by cops, because the problem is bigger than racism.
4. If you are so easily triggered by someone simply asking why we can't focus on the issue's I stated above, you're part of the problem. I expected a more intelligent response from Reason commentors.

[ElvisIsReal]

Shaver's killer is now retired and getting disability for the PTSD he got FOR KILLING SHAVER.

So yeah, he didn't get arrested.

[DJK]

Sure, more black people are killed by cops than white people. Black people also commit more violent crimes and thus have more violent police interactions. When adjusted for number of violent crimes committed, there is no statistical difference in the rates of police shootings between white people and black people. Moreover, when we're talking about unarmed black people getting shot, there were exactly nine of these incidents in 2019. Nine. In a country of 330 million people. This is an incredible statistical rarity. Compare this to, say, about 300 people killed in mass shootings each year. If you believe that such shootings are rare enough to not justify more gun control, you cannot consistently believe that police shootings of unarmed black people are a huge problem.

[Juice]

police are disproportionately violent towards Blacks

Statistics show that cops are equally violent with whomever they encounter. For whatever reasons, they tend to encounter black people disproportionately more often.

[darkflame]

Police are actually underly violent with a segment of the population that is overly violent. If we use logic, we should be seeing MORE shootings of blacks by cops, not less, since they make up half of all violent crimes.

[BikeRider]

In Kenosha, they don't talk about Aaron Siler or Michael Bell either. Both were shot and killed by police under questionable circumstances. Bell's family has kept his case in the forefront but, as far as I know, BLM has never addressed either.

[American Mongrel]

A Mexican k9 cop killed two white guys in three weeks a couple years back. He got billboards and yard signs.

[BikeRider]

That was the cop who shot Siler. He had shot, but not killed, someone just 10 days before. It was his first day back on duty after the investigation when he shot and killed Siler. The Bell case was several years before and involved different officers.

[American Mongrel]

My bad. I thought he killed the suicidal guy too.

[Some Jerk]

I've seen plenty of BLM supporters tweet the Shaver and Whitaker videos. Shaver's in particular is hard to forget and arguably the most sadistic.

The better question is: why are there so many bootlicking copaganda comments on any of Reason's many articles about Police overstepping their bounds?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

"disbursed with teargas and flash bangs" nice little Freudian slip there.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

The department also said that the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation will investigate the shooting.

And they'll determine that Blake should have been cited for a noise violation, leaning on the horn like that.

[Hoot Smawley]

He had open arrest warrants related to domestic abuse. Including a felony. And a criminal history involving firearms.

Is that good enough for you, or does being a domestic abuser not override your pathological hatred of cops?

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000736&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details

[Gray_Jay]

What Hoot said. The dude didn't want to go back to jail, and stupidly thought walking away and driving off from the cops screaming at him to stop, was going to make that happen.

[Trainer]

None of that gives a cop the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

[Gray_Jay]

Read more and post less, Trainer. Especially if it's going to be cliched, inaccurate slogans. I answered you above.

[Hoot Smawley]

It gives the police officer the right to defend themselves with lethal force when the arrestee resists arrest and makes a move towards a vehicle where he may have a gun stashed...particularly when the arrestee already has a criminal history involving firearms.

It's not a sporting competition. The police don't shoot someone with the goal of giving them a chance to shoot back. If you don't get that, you're frankly just not that bright.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Which has nothing to do with issuing a noise citation.

Seriously, meatsack. One of the signs of intelligence is the ability to identify humor.

[Hoot Smawley]

I guess you're unaware that the police have these things in their vehicles called "computers" that allow them to check the identity of the people they encounter on a call and establish whether or not they have an outstanding arrest warrant.

Because once they establish someone has an outstanding warrant, they're allowed to take them into custody immediately...whether or not the call was related to the warrant. That's pretty basic police procedure. You'd know that if you spent any amount of time doing research about police work.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

WHOOOOOSH

[Dillinger]

yeah dude wow. the noise citation was cherry.

[Annoyed Beyond]

If someone were to google the dead man’s name they might find an event where he walked away mad and got a gun. At that time he was taken down by a police dog.

[Dillinger]

shoot him now! shoot him now!

[Unicorn Abattoir]

One of the great Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck scenes

[Dillinger]

you keep out of this he doesn't have to shoot you now

[Unicorn Abattoir]

A pronoun problem!

[NJ2AZ]

as long as its clear he was shot because he's black and not because the police are poorly trained. would be a real shame if we didn't maximize the outrage while minimizing the likelihood of actual effective reforms

/s

[DJK]

Why search for actual solutions? Just riot instead!

[Gray_Jay]

Burning down the car dealership that had Black Lives Matter prominently on their large sign in the front, was a nice touch.

Maybe they should have tried, "Black Owned," instead?

[Tony]

Maybe racist trigger-happy donut munching sociopaths would prefer a teach-in.

[Cyto]

That comment is precisely why substantial changes still have not been made.

If you think "because racist cops" or even "because racism", you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. In fact, you are helping block the solution.

[Tony]

Perhaps braying about Democrat run cities will help? And why don’t they try having fathers at home?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Well, to be fair, that's where all the racism is.

[Serial Microaggressor]

Makes no difference. When smoothbrains like Tony go looking for racism, they're gonna find it one way or another.

[Tony]

What folly, it’s not like this country has been built on racism since the first European set foot in it.

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

this country has been built on racism

LOL imagine having a brain only capable of regurgitating nonsense bumper stickers.

[Tony]

What approximate date did racism end?

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

Leftists simultaneously laugh at the poor backwards South and claim that racism built the country. These people aren't rationalists with a well-developed hypothesis; they're developmentally stunted headcases with a chronic need to lash out.

[Serial Microaggressor]

It's all about the racism of the gaps. Any observed inequity between races can only be explained by racism. To consider other causal factors is simply heretical.
That's what he means by "built on racism". A meritocratic/capitalist system which allows inequity to occur. The only cure is to abolish private property so nobody has to suffer inequity.

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

I used to believe basically this. Essentially that the left had sacrilized race and were therefore immune to even very strong evidence to the contrary. But that seems to be wholly inadequate to explain how well after the lockdown, social distancing, etc were fully left-wing partisan issues, they literally all in unison in one night changed because a single crackhead was probably mistreated by the police. There's something deeper here, spiritual or mass psychosis or whatever.

[Tony]

I’ve asked more times than I can count for you people to explain racial differences in social outcomes, and you guys always run away like it’s a secret you don’t want to tell me.

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

Between blacks and whites? Blacks do better than you'd expect by IQ because of government set-asides.

[Nardz]

"There’s something deeper here, spiritual or mass psychosis or whatever."

Bingo.
Not that I can prove it, but I saw this shit coming 10 years ago. Not the precise events, but the mass psychosis.
Leftist ideology is inherently contradictory, but has taken the place traditionally filled by religion.
Their fantasy is of primary importance, because that fantasy is the source of their self valuation.
Because of this, all sense (information) received has to fit into that fantasy, and whatever doesn't fit is a threat.
The more reality disputes that fantasy (for example, a higher demand for racism than supply), the greater a threat reality, or rather accurate perception of reality, becomes.
Information has to be more and more mutated to fit into the fantasy.
Thus psychosis

[Nardz]

What I describe above can be seen in literal Christianity as well. Thankfully, Christianity has been modified many ways and most are able to fit it in as part of their lives rather than whole, and the literal truth of every word in the Bible is no longer needed, but it is inherently unstable as well.

Revelations is best read as a prediction of the inevitable internal breakdown of a totalitarian Christianity

[Nardz]

Sorry if I'm not stating this idea clearly.
My delivery could use some work.
Happy to discuss

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

You make a good point, but it doesn't answer "why now?" and "why do they act like the borg?" On the first question I think social media and "elite overproduction" must be big parts.

Christianity is a good comparison. "God put fossils here to test our faith" is the intellectual equivalent of "systemic racism," but the former was one (low status) answer among many while the latter has the entire elite and chattering classes in agreement.

Another observation I found interesting: weird youth identities are a fraction of what they were even really recently. I don't know what the mechanism would be but it could be something like: there's only a couple angsty youth cultures now and they're all online so even wine aunts can be cool with the LGBTQIAA nonsense in a way that was unthinkable with e.g. whatever retardation was behind JNCOs.

[Nardz]

I think you're on the right track, sidd.
Why now?
Because they were ordered to do it now and they've been let off the leash.
Social media definitely makes controlling and conditioning the hive mind easier.
Then there's the corporate embrace of "the personal is political and the political is personal", with the enthusiasm for branding a commodification of morality.
If it's not more steadfastly resisted, we are on the verge of leftist totalitarianism

[Tony]

The South is poor because they no longer have an economy based on free labor.

[Hank Phillips]

Tony's question about racial collectivism is being evaded. Socialists regard altruist collectivism as justification for the initiation of force. To Tony it's goood when it benefits communism and baaad when it benefits the more Positive Christian variants. Libertarians see this all too clearly--as clearly as why looters were sent here to skunk spray each other in anonymous efforts to poach seven million libertarian votes and get that hand in the till. We ARE listening to what you say about each other.

[Tony]

If any principle can be discerned from the teachings of Christ it would absolutely be that capitalism is evil.

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

I responded to your request, Tony. I trust that will be the last time you accuse me of running away.

[Nardz]

^when Tony admits that his ideology is simply "Christianity without god" but still doesn't realize it

[Tony]

That Christian guy had some good ideas among many bad ones.

[Nardz]

So, Tony: if you remove God, what then is the basis for Christian-derived morality?

[JeremyR]

What exactly would an outcome by better trained police have looked like?

There's basically no scenario where someone who repeatedly disobeys orders to stop and reaches into a truck doesn't get shot.

Better trained cops might have stopped him before he got to the truck, they might have used fewer bullets due to better marksmanship, but the reality is if you do anything remotely threatening to cops who have their guns drawn, they are going to shoot you.

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

What exactly would an outcome by better trained police have looked like?

There’s basically no scenario where someone who repeatedly disobeys orders to stop and reaches into a truck doesn’t get shot.

They'd be better at tactically controlling situations such that lunatics don't get a chance to reach into trucks?

[Nardz]

I'd think one of them could've placed himself between Blake and the vehicle. If Blake keeps coming at that point, armed with a knife, the case for using potentially deadly force to stop him would be much clearer

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

Rogan had an interesting SF guest who said that cops have awful tactical awareness and should be training about 1/3rd (IIRC) the time. Sounded reasonable to me.

[Nardz]

Credible

[Dillinger]

jfc.

[asiza_ema]

●▬▬▬▬???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ????????????▬▬▬▬▬●I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i'm hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink .....USA JOBES

[Mr. JD]

You know how badly BLM has screwed things up when most of the comments on police shooting article on Reason.com are defending the police.

[Moderation4ever]

Most of the comments on Reason are always defending the police or some police wanna be. You can be sure that if you have to shoot a black man you can count on commenter to have your back.

[Hank Phillips]

Good job of force-initiating looter infiltration of an uppity destabilizing 3rd-party magazine. Ya gotta hand it to looters and their disguised sockpuppets and unions. When it comes to shooting people in the back, fraud, election-rigging and turning murder one into the accidental use of force against someone who had only a second before already committed suicide, National Socialists have it down pat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reason ALWAYS leaves out crucial details. ALWAYS. It's like it's part of their style manual, or something. Then people have to point out the omitted details in the comments.

[Nardz]

So apparently the information on whether he did or did not have a gun hasn't been released.

Much like when the race of a mass shooter isn't mentioned, I think that's a fairly strong indication of which answer is most likely

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I have no idea what the cop would try to claim as a justification to this. I guess we'll have to see what the Union says.

[PenrodJ]

Easy: This guy was begging to be shot.

How deranged do you need to be to ignore two people, cops or not, who are pointing guns at you?

And with two people pointing guns at you, you decide it is a really good idea to open your van door and reach in, mimicking a person going for a deadly weapon.

Look at all the YouTube cop dash cam videos of cops being shot because they allowed a suspect to do exactly that.

This guy was BEGGING to be shot.

[Spiritus Mundi]

There may or may not have been a firearm in his car, but once he got inside he was in control of a weapon. I am sure there is more to this than the 2 min video the media wants you to see.

[David Lawson]

While I'm not convinced yet whether this was a good shoot or a bad one, I do agree that gun or no, a car is a powerful weapon and what should the officers expect from someone ignoring their lawful orders?

Apparently they arrived on the scene with this man seemingly fighting with 2 women. All three need to be detained and stories gotten.

[TheFav]

There was a time in the not too distant past that I could read a story on reason.com and be sure that I was getting an un-biased account of the events. That is no longer the case. I suggest everyone take a breath and do a little more investigating of this "story" prior to starting another round of needless riots.

Put yourself in his shoes... when I have multiple cops pointing guns at me, first I'm going to s!#& my pants then I'm going to follow their directions. Later on when the dust settles I can get whatever I want out of my car.

Or you could just watch this to see what might happen to the cops if they just let him get in his car...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BZkxLQ6zlk

Give peace a chance for f!@# sake!

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

There was a time in the not too distant past that I could read a story on reason.com and be sure that I was getting an un-biased account of the events.

There was a time when TheFav was incredibly naive.

[Weigel's Cock Ring]

Can you even imagine having so little regard for your own life that, knowing two or cops have loaded weapons on you at practically point blank range and that if you make so much as one wrong move they could quite possibly end you in an instant, and that doesn't even frighten you or slow your down for a moment?

That's pretty damn chilling in my opinion.

[Hank Phillips]

Everyone puts A LOT of stock in a cowardly sockpuppet opinion sticking up for national socialist executions by shoot-first race suicide First Responders in the War on Drugs. The GOP platform was dedicated to you guys, right?

[Hank Phillips]

Get 10 electoral votes for the War on Dope and preservation of lazy cop immunity. Gotcha. I'll be voting libertarian again...

[m1shu]

The guy had a warrant on him for domestic violence. He also had a record for weapons violations. It’s possible that he was trying to get a weapon from his vehicle. Notice the cop trying to pull him away from the vehicle by the shirt. He could have been trying to pull the guy away from the weapon. Critical thinking requires that you question the narrative that was rushed out first.

[Zeb]

Before anyone makes any judgement, it seems like we need to know if the police knew about his history and if they were trying to arrest him on the warrants. That is really the crucial bit of information we are missing. If they didn't know who he was, then his record is irrelevant to judging whether the police acted appropriately.

[XM]

If there was a warrant out on him, it's very likely they knew about his history. The "fight" was basically between him and his two girlfriends, allegedly.

A reminder - if this guy shot a black toddler in the head next day, the streets of Kenosha would not be on fire.

[Nardz]

^

[Nardz]

Specifically: "A reminder – if this guy shot a black toddler in the head next day, the streets of Kenosha would not be on fire"

[Sidd Finch v2.01]

If they didn’t know who he was, then his record is irrelevant to judging whether the police acted appropriately.

Back on the Michael Brown bullshit.

[Hank Phillips]

Heh heh... the nationalsocialist looters are REALLY worried about those 10 Wisconsin electoral votes, I see. Time for a small donation to a small county libertarian party, and to get that voter registration card as oiled and ready as a gibbet rope. With any luck the looters will tear each other up like Calico Cat and Gingham Dog and Jo will be running against the econazis, communists and George Wallace conservatives.

[Anarcho Bassist]

How stupid is this fucking cop?

[Hank Phillips]

The coroner will say it was a drug overdose and he'll walk.

[PenrodJ]

This guy was begging to be shot.

How deranged do you need to be to ignore two people, cops or not, who are pointing guns at you?

And with two people pointing guns at you, you decide it is a really good idea to open your van door and reach in, mimicking a person going for a deadly weapon.

Look at all the YouTube cop dash cam videos of cops being shot because they allowed a suspect to do exactly that.

This guy was BEGGING to be shot.

[Hank Phillips]

And Americans like the Nimrod sockpuppet were just BEGGING for the initiation of deadly force. Ain't Democracy grand with the Nixon Anti-Libertarian Law shuttling those tax dollars to the Kleptocracy soft machines?

[Hank Phillips]

Wisconsin went for Boss Trump, so it should be no trouble to get a coroner to say the guy opened the car door to lean on because he had just then died of a beer, demon rum, pot or "drug" overdose. This happens all the time. It LOOKS, WALKS and QUACKS like white cops gratuitously strangling or shooting people in the back but those people--according to Tarl and Reason commentators--were already dead. It's just a matter of getting the right stamps and signatures. Besides, Americans VOTED for the initiation of deadly force!

[johnnymars]

Thank the author for not making the headline read : White Cop Shoots Black Man in Back.

[wayne capurro]

It sure looked like he was going for a gun to me.

[Lester224]

No one has disputed that there were 3 little kids(3, 5 and 8) in that car. Shooting into that car was extremely dangerous for them. A bullet can go right through someone at that range.

The cop can bless his lucky stars that he didn't hit a kid.

[Nardz]

The kids were in the engine compartment?

[Lester224]

The door of the car was open and he shot the guy with a 9mm at point blank range. He shot into the car. The kids could have been anywhere in the car. The 8 year old could have been in the front seat.

[Hank Phillips]

There was a kid in Philando's car, and the cop still riddled Mr Castile with bullets for no reason other than he thought he smelt plant leaves. Jeronimo Yanez, the prohibition killer, was found not guilty by a jury of goodthinkful nationalsocialists. He "had no choice..." the black gentleman "might have been reaching for" a joint! Sockpuppets infiltrating Reason have convinced me Jo was right in saying we ought to side with the protesters (but not antifa anarchists).

[Crazy mick]

This is first degree murder, guy wasn't reaching for anything. You'd be pissed too if you were among the vast majority of blacks who aren't criminals and cops hassled you for bullshit.

[Nardz]

I mean, Blake was/is a criminal...

Leftists are obsessed with race.
It's unhealthy

[retiredfire]

Regardless of the propriety of the officer's actions; IN NO WAY does it justify a bunch of thugs rioting, looting, vandalizing, starting fires etc. that followed.

[Hank Phillips]

In a Republican State the feds could send in one of their assassination squads to quietly unperson Offissa Quickie Trigger in his jail cell. It's not as though there's any doubt about shooting the unarmed bro in the back. And didn't Boss Trump say he'd use federal force to keep those 10 electoral votes in God's Own Prohibitionists' column? Herbert Hoover's boys shot innocent people in the back all the time, and he'd've been re-elected were it not for that nasty Liberal Party with its Wet Plank.

[XM]

It's antifa town.

[Sophia_lizen]

Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given website....Follow my site.

[damikesc]

Anybody else shocked that the highly edited video didn't remotely tell the story? Or that OTHER videos showed a different perspective?

Cops on the OTHER side of the car DID wrestle him to the ground. He escaped and then walked to the other side of the car. Then they shot him for resisting arrest.

They TRIED to deal with him non-lethally and it did not work.

[Rufus The Monocled]

Sounds like he survived. This will get interesting.

And I'm sick and tired of gutless piece of shit politicians jumping to conclusions. Shut the frick up and wait until the facts are in assholes. Why add to the fire? As far as I'm concerned, they're no better.

This lack of judgment is wisdom is troubling since these are the same incompetent buffoons making life decisions during the pandemic.

[Jeb Kerman]

I need to wait until the media gets some facts and publishes them, something Reason has utterly failed to do at this point, before I decide. This article is crap.

Either way, the cops on scene should have arrested the shooter, IMO. Here's why.

Anyone else does this and they get arrested or shot. Badges don't grant rights, why is he not arrested on scene? Arrest him once backup is on scene and the situation is clearly under control.

This helps torpedo the narrative that the cop will get away Scott free. Book him. Assume the crime until the DA decides, just like for everyone else. This creates a public record of the incident just like for anyone else and it's on camera.

A huge part of this issue is that cops are never held accountable to the same standards as citizens. That is a real problem and a hallmark of a tyranny and is enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. This needs to end, by treating everyone the same under the law.

Arrest the cop, on site, in full view of the public after every shoot. Yeah, the DA may drop charges later on in the day but then it's on an elected official, not the police and it starts us on the path to being a republic again.

[Damien]

Oh course not, they're special agents under the law. Since people lack the self-discipline to control themselves, they have to step in.

So a doctor makes a medical error (to a magnitude of 500 compared to police shootings). Should they be arrested on the spot for causing harm?

[Jeb Kerman]

If a doctor shoots someone in broad daylight in front of video cameras, yes. Otherwise your argument is a non-sequitur.

It would have the added benefit of taking the shooter out of the scene where relatives of the shootee may be looking for a way to get revenge.

Arrest them and sort it out at the police station with the lawyers present like civilized people.

[NOYB2]

If a doctor shoots someone in broad daylight in front of video cameras, yes.

Doctors kill people in broad daylight all the time, usually with witnesses around. They usually don't get arrested for it.

[NOYB2]

Anyone else does this and they get arrested or shot.

That's just false. If the cops believe that your use of force was legitimate, you won't get arrested even as a civilian.

A huge part of this issue is that cops are never held accountable to the same standards as citizens.

That's because they are not acting as private citizens, they are acting as agents of the state. You're welcome to try to change that by changing the law, but you are trying to deny reality under current law.

This needs to end, by treating everyone the same under the law.

The Constitution does not mandate that agents of the state in their official capacity be treated like private citizens.

[M L]

He's up to 1.1 million on GoFundMe. No wonder people are acting as if they are eager to get shot by the police.

[Damien]

Kenosha self-insures, which might mean the city has to pay for all the clean up. Would love to see it if the taxpayers realize they're footing the bill.