The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[grumbler]

my understanding of the case is that Blake was told to stop multiple times, 2 officers fired their tasers at him, and he kept going for his car where a knife was seen (and found).

unless the knife was planted there after the fact by the officers (unlikely, since he did say he had a knife), I don't see how it can be a hate crime at this point.  Maybe there's other evidences not referred by Wikipedia?

Blake was shot in the back six times.  Whether police had fired tasers at his back before then is not relevant.  whether there was a knife in his car is not relevant.  At the time he was assaulted, he posed no threat to anyone.  The officers could not have been in fear of their life given that his back was turned to them.  Police had no reason to believe that he had committed a crime, nor that he was going to commit a felony unless the police used deadly force.  So, the deadly force was not justified.  If you want to weasel about whether it was a "hate crime" or merely unprovoked attempted murder, please do so elsewhere.

[viper37]

my understanding of the case is that Blake was told to stop multiple times, 2 officers fired their tasers at him, and he kept going for his car where a knife was seen (and found).

unless the knife was planted there after the fact by the officers (unlikely, since he did say he had a knife), I don't see how it can be a hate crime at this point.  Maybe there's other evidences not referred by Wikipedia?

Blake was shot in the back six times.  Whether police had fired tasers at his back before then is not relevant.  whether there was a knife in his car is not relevant.  At the time he was assaulted, he posed no threat to anyone.  The officers could not have been in fear of their life given that his back was turned to them.  Police had no reason to believe that he had committed a crime, nor that he was going to commit a felony unless the police used deadly force.  So, the deadly force was not justified.  If you want to weasel about whether it was a "hate crime" or merely unprovoked attempted murder, please do so elsewhere.

There was a warrant for his arrest, and there had been a complaint he did not belong there.

Shooting 6-7 times in the back is certainly excessive, but if the officer tells you "STOP" and "DROP THE KNIFE" and you're still, apparently, reaching for it, there maybe a reasonable doubt here.  And the other officers tased, or tried to tased him while facing him.

All I'm saying is, with the evidence I have seen right now, I don't see it as a slam dunk for a hate crime, as you suggested.

We'll just see how that goes with the investigation before jumping to conclusion.

[jimmy olsen]

my understanding of the case is that Blake was told to stop multiple times, 2 officers fired their tasers at him, and he kept going for his car where a knife was seen (and found).

unless the knife was planted there after the fact by the officers (unlikely, since he did say he had a knife), I don't see how it can be a hate crime at this point.  Maybe there's other evidences not referred by Wikipedia?

Blake was shot in the back six times.  Whether police had fired tasers at his back before then is not relevant.  whether there was a knife in his car is not relevant.  At the time he was assaulted, he posed no threat to anyone.  The officers could not have been in fear of their life given that his back was turned to them.  Police had no reason to believe that he had committed a crime, nor that he was going to commit a felony unless the police used deadly force.  So, the deadly force was not justified.  If you want to weasel about whether it was a "hate crime" or merely unprovoked attempted murder, please do so elsewhere.

There was a warrant for his arrest, and there had been a complaint he did not belong there.

Shooting 6-7 times in the back is certainly excessive, but if the officer tells you "STOP" and "DROP THE KNIFE" and you're still, apparently, reaching for it, there maybe a reasonable doubt here.  And the other officers tased, or tried to tased him while facing him.

All I'm saying is, with the evidence I have seen right now, I don't see it as a slam dunk for a hate crime, as you suggested.

We'll just see how that goes with the investigation before jumping to conclusion.

Cops yell that shit all the time to people they know are unarmed so it sounds good on the cameras.

[Valmy]

Shooting 6-7 times in the back is certainly excessive,

Yes that is the entire point. I don't really get the argument here. Should the police have taken some action? Yes. But the Constitution says that people are not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. You gotta be really fucking sure you just saved somebody's life before you violate somebody's constitutional rights as an agent of the government.

Now even if they are not guilty of murder I would hope the person who made that call is recognized as being unfit to serve as a law enforcement officer.

Also you have to recognize the many many many decades this issue has been a subject of discussion. Many people are not really interested in giving these cops the benefit of the doubt after so much time. That adds a whole new layer of danger, as you are helping to spread civil unrest and pubic disorder everytime you make the decision to use your weapon against an unarmed civilian. Such police officers are a public menace.

Does this happen much in Quebec that suspects get shot multiple times in the back?

[Syt]

At least the NY Post is fair and balanced.

[Syt]

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/514216-teen-who-organized-black-lives-matter-rally-gets-2500-bill-from-mayor-for

Woman who organized Black Lives Matter rally gets $2500 bill from mayor for police overtime costs

A New Jersey 18-year-old has been billed nearly $2,500 in police overtime costs after she organized a Black Lives Matter rally in her town over affordable housing.

NJ Advance Media first reported on the woman, Emily Gil, who said she got the bill earlier this month from Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario M. Kranjac for $2,499.26 "for the police overtime caused by your protest."

Gil said she held the protest because the city has "dodged affordable housing requirements for 40-plus years," calling it "unacceptable."

According to the report, she received a letter alongside her bill that said because she did not meet with city officials before holding the protest, they had to scramble to find police to work overtime for the event.

But Gil says she did not want to meet in person over coronavirus concerns and her offer for a virtual meeting with officials was rejected. She also alleges that city officials stopped responding to her communications and she still hasn't heard from the mayor after also reaching out to him about the bill.

Gil said only 30 or 40 people joined the rally, which was peaceful and caused no disturbances. She says protesters also picked up their trash.

She told the outlet she also reached out to the local police chief about the overtime bill. Englewood Cliffs Police Chief William Henkelman responded that he had complained to the mayor of the additional staffing needed and "extensive preparation."

Kranjac told NJ Advance Media that protesters' First Amendment rights were fully respected by the city and police, but slammed Gil over her comments on affordable housing.

"Ms. Gil is misinformed when she links our affordable housing issues with her protest, and she is wrong when she writes that I voted against affordable housing," the mayor told the publication. "Everyone is welcome in Englewood Cliffs."

[Oexmelin]

In just a few hours, that murderer got 140k from fellow fascists for his legal defense, on a Christian social funding site.

[grumbler]

There was a warrant for his arrest, and there had been a complaint he did not belong there.

Those are pretty thin grounds for you to justify homicide.  Can police shoot anyone six times in the back if there is a warrant out for their arrest, or they believe that "there had been a complaint he did not belong there?"  The society you propose is going to be far more violent than any in the world today.

Shooting 6-7 times in the back is certainly excessive, but if the officer tells you "STOP" and "DROP THE KNIFE" and you're still, apparently, reaching for it, there maybe a reasonable doubt here.  And the other officers tased, or tried to tased him while facing him.

There is no room for reasonable doubt here, since no one was in peril of their life, and the police had no reason to believe that Blake would commit a violent felony if he were allowed to get into his car.  The video I saw had the officers shooting him in the back with their tasers.  Where do you get the information that he was facing them when tased, and how does your source square that claim with the video?

All I'm saying is, with the evidence I have seen right now, I don't see it as a slam dunk for a hate crime, as you suggested.

We'll just see how that goes with the investigation before jumping to conclusion.

All I can say is that, with the evidence I see right now, I don't see it as a slam dunk that the officers involved are innocent, as you suggested.

Instead, I'll just see how the investigation goes with  before jumping to conclusions.

[viper37]

Cops yell that shit all the time to people they know are unarmed so it sounds good on the cameras.

I'm not saying they were justified to shoot him seven times in the back.

But if a cop yells you to stop, to drop the knife, you gotta stop and show your empty hands.  By now, everyone should know American cops tend to be trigger happy, and they feel threatened by black men, so they really should be extra careful when dealing with the police, until such time as there can be a comprehensive reform of police work.

Now, the issue is: can they be convicted on a hate crime based on the evidence presented.  My non lawyer answer is that it's doubtful.  But maybe there is other evidence.  Maybe Wikipedia has something wrong (my only source on the matter). Maybe there are facts unknown/unreleased to the public.  Maybe part of what happenned was staged by the cops so they could look good.  That's all a lot of "maybe" at this point.

One thing is certain: if a cop yells at me to stop and/or to drop the knife, I am stopping and showing my hands.  Maybe I'll get shot anyway.  But at least, it would make it clear I wasn't a threat.

[Admiral Yi]

Cops yell that shit all the time to people they know are unarmed so it sounds good on the cameras.

This is a fantastically wacky thing to say.

[viper37]

Shooting 6-7 times in the back is certainly excessive,

Yes that is the entire point. I don't really get the argument here. Should the police have taken some action? Yes. But the Constitution says that people are not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. You gotta be really fucking sure you just saved somebody's life before you violate somebody's constitutional rights as an agent of the government.

Now even if they are not guilty of murder I would hope the person who made that call is recognized as being unfit to serve as a law enforcement officer.

Also you have to recognize the many many many decades this issue has been a subject of discussion. Many people are not really interested in giving these cops the benefit of the doubt after so much time. That adds a whole new layer of danger, as you are helping to spread civil unrest and pubic disorder everytime you make the decision to use your weapon against an unarmed civilian. Such police officers are a public menace.

Well, my point was that it's difficult to convict this officer of an hate crime in this particular situation.  Even attempted murder would be a stretch, imho, since he had a knife and was looking like he was reaching for it and refused to stop when told to.

What you and I think is irrelevent, it's what his lawyer will make the jury believe that counts.

Does this happen much in Quebec that suspects get shot multiple times in the back?

rarely.  They are usually shot from the front while charging the officers.  People with mental health issues are the problem   I mean, it's problematic that they are most likely to be shot when confronted by the police, even when they were called to insure their security.  Police are ill equipped to deal with these cases.

Also, on indian reservations, encounters have a higher likelyhood of getting fatal.  Alcohol/drugs, mental health issues, guns everywhere*.  Bad combo


* (despite the laws, and despite what well meaning city folks think, guns are a reality once you get out of "civilization" )

[Ancient Demon]

At least the NY Post is fair and balanced.

I suppose you think it's actually fair and balanced when most of the media defended Trayvon, and now is demonizing Kyle.

[Ancient Demon]

In just a few hours, that murderer got 140k from fellow fascists for his legal defense, on a Christian social funding site.

He's not a murderer or a fascist, and I hope he get's even more money and support.

[Valmy]

At least the NY Post is fair and balanced.

I suppose you think it's actually fair and balanced when most of the media defended Trayvon, and now is demonizing Kyle.

Well Trayvon didn't kill anybody, I don't really see how the two situations demand equal treatment.

[Valmy]

In just a few hours, that murderer got 140k from fellow fascists for his legal defense, on a Christian social funding site.

He's not a murderer or a fascist, and I hope he get's even more money and support.

Is killing American citizens just fine and alright now? I am just so baffled by the "American citizens who are killed deserve it" attitude I keep seeing.

I guess if that is the new expectation I should adjust my attitude accordingly.