Man injured after officer involved shooting in Kenosha

It's not my dishonesty. Color is not a race. It's a color.

 

Correct. That means you don't like people with black skin for some reason. I still don't know what skin color has to do with liking or disliking people. Does the color black make people react ugly and nasty to the color?
I don't know.

 

Make sure he is stopped.

 

cant let him get in the car, destroy more organs, why stop at one when you can paralyze or even kill a man right?

 

He could have submitted to the arrest why don't you start there.

But do tell where did the first bullet hit him? What damage did it do? How about the second one? The third one?

 

It's my understanding that the mans girlfriend had a stay away order of protection against him. He showed up to her house anyway and she called 911. The police showed up and tried to arrest him, but he resisted and they couldn't subdue him. So they tased him but he shrugged it off and went to his car against Officers commands. He opened the car door and began to reach in. The nearest Officer saw the knife on the floorboard. Fearing for his life and the life of others, with the mans uncanny ability to escape and resist arrest still fresh in the Officers mind, he shot the man on the spot. And that was that. Looks totally justified to me, though unfortunate for the man.

 

Looks like they tased him twice!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...other-cops-involved/ar-BB18t9w1?ocid=msedgntp

"During a struggle that preceded the broad-daylight shooting in Kenosha, police deployed their tasers twice in a failed attempt to subdue the 29-year-old father of six, the Wisconsin Department of Justice said in a news release Friday morning."

 

Who said anything about waiting until he fired? The cops had their guns trained on him. If the victim actually does grab something from the car AND THEN MAKES A QUICK MOVE TO TURN ON THE COPS then you open fire. The police would be able to squeeze off more then enough shots before victim would even be able to raise his gun to aim (assuming he even had one... Which he did not!).

 

Then why say sending a White cop could have escalated things? I mean color does not matter... right?

 

Speaking of uncanny abilities, some people on this board have an uncanny ability to read minds.

 

Will he get arrested:

 

He had already engaged the police with a deadly weapon, he had already been TASED twice trying to stop him, he opened a car door and reached inside where another weapon could be stashed.....................BAM..... I don't know what you are missing here.

 

Will the criminal face additional charges for resisting arrest, physically engaging police officers with a lethal weapon, attempt to flee, endangering minors?

 

I explained it extremely clear so that even trump lovers could understand. What exactly are you having trouble with?

 

Your omission of the facts and ignoring the law.

What We Know about the Jacob Blake Shooting

"......This case somewhat resembles that of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Okla., who similarly defied commands and reached into a vehicle. The cop who shot him was acquitted. As my former colleague David French put it a few years ago, “Crutcher didn’t have a gun, but the law does not require cops to be omniscient. It requires that they be reasonable. It is reasonable to believe that a person who won’t obey commands, won’t get on the ground, and is walking back toward (and ultimately reaching in) his car is a threat.”

In this case, of course, the details are a bit different. The full analysis will involve ascertaining where the knife was and when, what the cops knew about it and when, whether they thought Blake was getting a different weapon from the SUV, and — most important — whether Officer Sheskey reasonably feared that Blake posed an imminent threat when he opened fire.

Going by what is currently known, however, I’m doubtful that Sheskey will be successfully prosecuted. Blake went into the SUV in open defiance of the officers, and a lethal weapon was found in that part of the vehicle. At the key moment, a noncompliant suspect was in close proximity to both a knife and the cops he was fighting with. A knife can kill someone quickly up close. Few juries would think it unreasonable for an officer to fear for his life in that situation."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...river&utm_content=most-popular&utm_term=ninth

 

I'm missing any real threat to the officer's lives. I realize the police are not obligated to wait until they are fired upon to shoot back but when they have weapons drawn and trained on the suspect a gun should at least be visible being brought into play.

I miss the old days when the cops would walk right up and club you into the very Earth if you gave them any guff. I guess they only do that to handcuffed homeless people and unkempt teenagers any more.

 

Readthe post above yours

He had already engaged the police with a deadly weapon at one point having one of the officers in a headlock, he had already been TASED twice trying to stop him, he walked.around the front of the car and opened the car door and reached inside where another weapon could be stashed.....................BAM..... I don't know what you are missing here.

 

We need let the system work. It is all we have. Guessing is pointless.

 

The 'system' is a part of the problem here.
IMO a cop should feel no less trepidation in using his weapon than a civilian would
OTOH I think it is high time that we use a LOT more automatic body cams and even drones than we see at play nowadays. Even little drones aren't SF anymore. They're cheaper than dirt and available to anyone. Are we going to have civilian's car cams being brought into courtrooms to gainsay policemen soon?

 

Yes, but as I said, it is all we have. Fixing the system makes sense. We should be sure it treats everyone equally.

Perhaps they do. It is also accurate to say that they encounter more dangerous situations than civilians so that may not be a fair criticism of police. Teach criminals to stop threatening cops and resisting arrest. That will go further than having fewer police. Nobody wants to see people shot unnecessarily.

Sounds like wish for 1984. I'm not on board with that.

 

Be careful about taking the word of police unions. Remember the "poisoning" of police officers at a Shake Shack in NYC?

 

Why? All they'll do is LOOK. They won't record or even be deployed until there's some sort of thing going on where a record is necessary. These won't spy on the citizenry but keep an eye on the police. If the police are doing nothing wrong what are they afraid of?

You say nobody wants to see people shot unnecessarily but I've talked to quite a few conservatives who seem quite anxious that we shoot what seems LOTS of people and if a few of them are innocent, well that's just collateral damage to keep the "animals" cowed and in line. A cop should understand that he's being closely looked at and recorded all the time and he's not going to be able to hide behind the "thin blue line" or the Policeman's Union if he wants to indulge his being a psychopath with a badge anymore.

The vast VAST majority of good cops will welcome this, and we have to get rid of the bad cops as quickly as we can.

 

Not fear. Just a strong value placed on privacy.

I do agree that bad cops should be flushed out of the system with no impediments. Those that commit crimes should face the same consequences as any other criminal. All of that is just common sense. No studies required.

 

Be careful ignoring the facts as we know them, remember Ferguson, Michael Brown, Floyd and on and on and on.

 

No you haven't.