Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 31, 2020

The union representing police officers in Kenosha, Wis., have provided to NPR what they say is a detailed account of the moments leading up to the shooting of Jacob Blake, who was severely wounded by a police officer Sunday.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Time to slaughter the source.

#1 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:31 AM | Reply

Oh, so THAT'S why they shot him in the back 7 times while he was trying to get into his car. And they wonder why people say F*** the police.

#2 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-08-31 09:34 AM | Reply

Time to slaughter sources (oh so trustworthy police unions), or slaughter black people? /angry /s

#3 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-08-31 09:38 AM | Reply

Come on. You don't think him being armed with a knife while officers are trying to detain him is reason? They waited a long time issuing a lot of commands before resorting to shooting him. He had fought an officer..... that's assault on an officer, and jailable. He was not free to leave. He should have dropped that knife on the ground and kept his hands up long before it got to that.

#4 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:38 AM | Reply

There are a lot of racist incidents of police brutality to plant your flag on. This is not one of them.

#5 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:40 AM | Reply

If that even is a knife in the photo, he was walking away the entire time, even when reportedly tazed he didn't threaten any officer, and he was getting in his car. This was deescalating and the cop grabbed his shirt, pulled him to him and fired 7 shots into his back!

What the f--k? How is this supposed to help the police?

Wow.

#6 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"an outstanding warrant for third-degree sexual assault."

What does that mean? He was a criminal at large with a warrant for his arrest until this shooting?

He was being accused of sexual assault but he hadn't been picked up for it yet?

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 09:41 AM | Reply

#4 | Posted by ABH

Seven shots to the back?

In old fashioned American: Cowardice.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 09:41 AM | Reply

#6. I take it you have never seen a karambit?

en.m.wikipedia.org

#9 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:43 AM | Reply

Irrelevant.

The Supreme Court ruled years ago that you can't shoot someone in the back unless they pose an immediate threat, or if they are likely to soon be an immediate threat. He clearly wasn't because he was walking away the entire time.

You can't assassinate someone because you don't like them not listening to you.

#10 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 09:44 AM | Reply

"If that even is a knife in the photo"

Is there any doubt it's a knife? Is Blake saying it wasn't a knife? anything from him on it?

"This was deescalating"

He's evading the police, getting into his vehicle either to get a weapon or drive off.......and that's "deescalating"?

At the end of the day....shooting him was still wrong and the cop should be held accountable for it....so don't think I'm stumping for the cops.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 09:45 AM | Reply

Please. You try arresting someone that has a fighting knife. And see how you react.

He had a deadly weapon. In his hand. The office is under no obligation to wait until he is stuck with it.

If they can show he never ordered him to drop it? Or if he dropped the knife before being shot? Then there is a serious problem and the cop should be in serious trouble. My point being, this case is not nearly as clear cut as everyone wants to make it.

But if he did issue proper commands and was forced to arrest an armed suspect, that's what happens.

#12 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:47 AM | Reply

You actually want me to answer that walking away, even driving away, isn't deescalating? That's EXACTLY how I deescalate when I'm confronted. I walk away and cool down.

He had no weapon in the car.

The police union (which are pure scum, by the way) are the ones saying the only weapon was in his hand, and he had it when he allegedly tussled wiith the police. He didn't use it then, did he? He didn't use it when they fired a tazer at him (allegedly), and he didn't use it or even turn to confront them when he was walking away.

There was no justification for shooting him in the back. None. Zero.

#13 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 09:50 AM | Reply

10 if a police officer grand'sa suspect to arrest them and they have a knife in their hand.... still.... after being told to drop it multiple times, he's in the right shooting him. The law doesn't require he actually spin around and slice his throat open before resorting to his own deadly weapon.

I hope that's the case. If he didn't issue appropriate commands, or Blake actually dropped the knife before the officer pulled the trigger, then he should absolutely be fired And charged.

#14 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:50 AM | Reply

He doesn't get to walk away to cool down and "deescalate ". He just assaulted an officer and is under arrest.

#15 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:52 AM | Reply

"That's EXACTLY how I deescalate when I'm confronted."

We're not talking about an argument with your girlfriend here.

Evading the police is not "deescalating".

Go ask a judge if you don't believe me.

I already did.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 09:52 AM | Reply

He doesn't get to walk away to cool down and "deescalate ". He just assaulted an officer and is under arrest.

#15 | Posted by ABH at

Seven shots to the back is cowardice.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 09:53 AM | Reply

Okay, Boomer.

#18 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:54 AM | Reply

Okay, Boomer.

#18 | Posted by ABH

Cowards empathize with cowards.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 09:55 AM | Reply

Apparently an admin doesn't like the link with the picture showing the knife in his hand and removed it from the thread.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

#20 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:56 AM | Reply

19

nobody empathizes for you, Zed.

Stop calling people a coward on an anonymous blog.

It's sort of.......well......cowardice.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 09:56 AM | Reply

Okay, Boomer.

#18 | Posted by ABH

Cowardice is an antique term for Trumpites. Has to be, for obvious reasons.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 09:57 AM | Reply

Whatever you say, tough guy. I would literally love to see someone say to you, "hey see that guy over there with fighting knife in his hand? Ya, go tackle him and put some cuffs on him."

You would wet your pants.

#23 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:57 AM | Reply

20

They can ask Blake what that was.....his library card maybe?

Or his daughter's barbie doll?

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 09:58 AM | Reply

#21 | Posted by eberly

You can be a coward or you can be a brave man. It's binary.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 09:58 AM | Reply

And to be clear, I did not vote for Trump last time and I have No intention of doing so this time.

#26 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:59 AM | Reply

He does according to SCOTUS.
This is not that different form Wendy's in ATL. The police don't care - if your'e black you get shot in the back for the "crime" of not "respecting" them.
The police don't enforce the law. Not anymore. They enforce compliance with whatever they say. Sometime dealing out premeditated decisions:

"(o)fficer Van ---- alone fired 16 times at McDonald, who had a knife and was walking away from a group of officers. After the verdict, one juror said the "the turning point" in the case was testimony that Van ---- told his partner, "Oh my God, we're going to have to shoot that guy," before arriving at the scene. The jury found him guilty of second-degree murder " essentially rejecting the lawyer's argument that Van ---- had no recourse but to shoot McDonald."

www.americanbar.org

#27 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Whatever you say, tough guy. I would literally love to see someone say to you, "hey see that guy over there with fighting knife in his hand? Ya, go tackle him and put some cuffs on him."

#23 | Posted by ABH at

The strange thing is that I have already done something like.

It was very, very unpleasant but neither I or the person I restrained wet ourselves.

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:01 AM | Reply

And to be clear, I did not vote for Trump last time and I have No intention of doing so this time.

#26 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 09:59 AM | Reply |

OK, all is forgiven.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:02 AM | Reply

#28 sure you did.

#30 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 10:03 AM | Reply

tough guy

#23 | Posted by ABH at

That's my point. I wasn't tough at all.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:03 AM | Reply

#28 sure you did.

#30 | Posted by ABH

Thanks, appreciate that.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:04 AM | Reply

"You can be a coward or you can be a brave man. It's binary."

okay....then let's go with that.

You're calling people a coward from the confines of your computer screen.

Coward or brave? remember.....it's binary.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 10:07 AM | Reply

What happened to this man is explainable through Game Theory. The officer maximized perceived outcomes by shooting the man in the back.

Nothing personal, strictly business.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Coward or brave? remember.....it's binary.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 10:07

Being stupid is also binary, EB.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:10 AM | Reply

I'm sorry, but the American values the Right abandoned remain with me.

You don't shoot people in the back.

#36 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:11 AM | Reply

-And to be clear, I did not vote for Trump last time and I have No intention of doing so this time.

It's amazing isn't it what you feel compelled to qualify your statements with that here?

You have to, unfortunately.

any disagreement on an issue always invokes a belief or accusation that your only motivation for any argument is support for Trump.

We can agree on Trump's influence with the riots/protests, etc. but this altercation with the cops and Blake has NOTHING to do with Trump.

but if you dare disagree with someone here about it.......you're just in the bag for Trump.

You goddam trumpite, trumphumper, trumping trumper!!!!!!

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 10:12 AM | Reply

You goddam trumpite, trumphumper, trumping trumper!!!!!!

#37 | Posted by eberly at

Trump will carry Kansas.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:16 AM | Reply

and Texas.......you're point?

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 10:17 AM | Reply

and Texas.......you're point?

#39 | Posted by eberly

Maybe not Texas.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2020-08-31 10:19 AM | Reply

Houston and Austin will have a lot to say whether or not Texas goes Blue or Red. If the citizens of those two cities Vote en masse, it could very well go blue.

#41 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 10:20 AM | Reply

Again....:your point?

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 10:37 AM | Reply

Zed is such a positive influence here.

"Cowards"
"stupid"
...and now chastising me for living in a red state.

LOL

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 11:14 AM | Reply

A knife? So scary. He might have hurt someone if they didn't know how to step out of the way. Better shoot him in the back 7 times while he's walking away just to be safe.

#44 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-08-31 12:46 PM | Reply

Right. So step out of the way while arresting a guy armed already proven to be unwilling to drop the knife. Makes total sense. Not at all.

#45 | Posted by ABH at 2020-08-31 01:16 PM | Reply

"You actually want me to answer that walking away, even driving away, isn't deescalating? That's EXACTLY how I deescalate when I'm confronted. I walk away and cool down."

Uh...I don't think it counts when you're a criminal and have a warrant out for your arrest.

I don't think that's one of those times you get to just drive away?

I mean, that's fine if that's what you're suggesting. That criminals should only be arrested if they're willing to be arrested.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-08-31 01:43 PM | Reply

"This is not that different form Wendy's in ATL. The police don't care - if your'e black you get shot in the back for the "crime" of not "respecting" them."

Brooks passed out from drinking too much while in the middle of a drive-thru.

This was one of those situations where the cops were going to lose, regardless of what happened. Had they let him go, they would have been allowing an extremely intoxicated individual to continue driving, where he could have very well hurt himself. And much more importantly, hurt others.

Instead, they tried to arrest him, he fought back, grabbed one officer's tasers, and ran off.

I don't think it has anything to do with respect, it has to do with preserving public safety. It appears that you place public safety as being secondary to the wants of the suspect.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-08-31 02:18 PM | Reply

So, I posed this question to a cop I know:

Yes. I have to admit, to an untrained eye like mine, it looked like things didn't escalate to a point where he needed to be shot. It seemed a bit preemptive and 7 shots seemed a tad excessive. From your POV was that a justified shoot?

His response:

Clean shoot all day, he was also armed with a knife and they tried everything at their disposal before their pistols. He told them he was getting a gun from the car and they literally waited until the absolute last moment And this Blake guy they shot in Kenosha, was violating a restraining order and had an active sexual assault warrant on a child and a prior felon... he resisted after 2 attempts with taser before being shot reaching into his car

Also, he has a warrant for sexual assault on a child! He doesn't get to leave unless it's in cuffs!

#48 | Posted by zetaleph at 2020-08-31 02:43 PM | Reply

Wow the story of this bad boy just gets better everyday.

So i'm sitting in the group W section with........FATHER RAPERS.

Karambit, yeah Forged in Fire is great.

#49 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 03:00 PM | Reply

#48 - so your "cop buddy" is a piece of ----, too. Surprise.

Madbomber: I mean, that's fine if that's what you're suggesting. That criminals should only be arrested if they're willing to be arrested.

So the only option was to shoot him 7 times in the back? I see you ignored the fact that SCOTUS already ruled on this.

This was one of those situations where the cops were going to lose, regardless of what happened. Had they let him go, they would have been allowing an extremely intoxicated individual to continue driving, where he could have very well hurt himself. And much more importantly, hurt others.

He was running away and left his car in the lot. He wasn't going to drive anywhere. He was heading to the house that was near there.

I don't think it has anything to do with respect, it has to do with preserving public safety. It appears that you place public safety as being secondary to the wants of the suspect.

It appears that way to you because you are clueless about what happened. To anyone else reading this that knows the case I'm not the one looking foolish. Oh, and last I checked he was one of the public, not one of "those" that you deem unworthy and guilty and deserving death.

#50 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 03:26 PM | Reply

"so your "cop buddy" is a piece of ----, too. Surprise."

You've never even met him. What is your background in arrest protocol? How much training have you had? I didn't have an in-depth discussion with him about it. I posed my question via text. You seem to suggest that police officers have no right to defend themselves or protect the public. Now THAT is what I call a POS.

#51 | Posted by zetaleph at 2020-08-31 03:39 PM | Reply

When I told my father-in-law about his response he suggested I ask him if 7 shots was overkill. I will ask him that.

#52 | Posted by zetaleph at 2020-08-31 03:40 PM | Reply

You seem to suggest...
Now THAT is what I call a POS.
#51 | POSTED BY ZETALEPH

You're really struggling with all of this, aren't you.

You have a very skewed perspective, leading to a fallible reading comprehension, which could be explained by your bias is getting the best of you. Or, simply put, you're just a troll.

I'm leaning towards the latter, hoping it's the former as the former can be dealt with through discussion. The latter is not a discussion at all and you know it.

#53 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-08-31 03:44 PM | Reply

-#48 - so your "cop buddy" is a piece of ----, too. Surprise.

If this issue continues to be argued prior to the election, I'll bet you'll see a report that shows that the current candidate for VP of the United States for the Democratic party is "a piece of ----" as well.

Meaning she likely took the side of law enforcement in these situations.

As do most if not all prosecuting attorneys.

Oh, and judges too......

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 03:44 PM | Reply

-A knife? So scary.

I assume you're saying that because you've defended yourself in similar situations, Johnny -------?

We got a bunch of Chuck Norris wannabes here.

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 03:47 PM | Reply

"Meaning she likely took the side of law enforcement in these situations."

That was her job, Eberly.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-31 03:50 PM | Reply

#53 it pissed me off that he called my buddy a POS. He's a great guy. I remember talking to him about working the graveyard shift. He told me if he pulled someone over who was driving erratically and they had a clean record with no priors and they blew a .15 he would park their car for them and drive them home "We've all been there" and he'd warn them to stay home until the morning and that if he caught them out again that same night he would arrest them for a DUI. Cutting a break to a guy who had 1 or 2 too many - yeah, that sounds like a real POS to me. That's just one example. And that has nothing to do with how he is as a friend, husband and father.

#57 | Posted by zetaleph at 2020-08-31 04:05 PM | Reply

"#53 it pissed me off that he called my buddy a POS."

You're a grown-up.

Learn to control your emotions.

Explore the concept of having emotions other than rage, hate, and contempt.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-31 04:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-You're really struggling with all of this, aren't you.

I think people calling others a POS over their opinion are the ones "struggling".

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 04:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I mean, that's fine if that's what you're suggesting. That criminals should only be arrested if they're willing to be arrested."

What other option are they suggesting?

I'm with you.....I'm fine with it if that's the legitimate argument.

7 shots in the back is over the line, IMO.

But I'm the kind of guy who doesn't just complain......I offer a suggestion/solution when I criticize.

So.....what should have happened?

shoot him fewer times?
not shoot him at all?
let him go?
follow?
don't follow?

Its been suggested we should "deescalate" the situation.....

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 04:17 PM | Reply

I think people calling others a POS over their opinion are the ones "struggling".
#59 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Ummmm....okay. That's not the context of "struggle" I was aiming at, but you clearly want me to be consistent in identifying EVERYONE here who I find to be struggling.

Is that the case? If so, I'll take the time to conduct a thorough psychological evaluation of each user's account based on their most recent posts. What do you think, the last 30 posts per user would be sufficient?

I mean, I'm not sure. You seem to be adept at pointing these things out, so throw me a bone, would you?

#61 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-08-31 04:18 PM | Reply

"What do you think, the last 30 posts per user would be sufficient?"

I checked with Eberly's quick guide to blogging and he says 45 posts, with a minimum of 5 days, is the preferred look-back.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 04:25 PM | Reply

"Clean shoot all day, he was also armed with a knife and they tried everything at their disposal before their pistols."

Saturday night I was at a party with the retired district attorney (just won his election to be a district judge). I asked him same question...

30+ years working as a prosecutor. He didn't hesitate..."totally justified".

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 04:29 PM | Reply

"he was also armed with a knife"

No, he really wasn't.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-31 04:33 PM | Reply

30+ years working as a prosecutor. He didn't hesitate..."totally justified".
#63 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Absolutely agree, which is the problem. And is also the problem with Breonna Taylor's death.

Police reform needs to include these training practices to include ensuring police provide as much benefit of the doubt to the public during confrontations as possible. This would include a massive pay raise for police officers with the caveat that they will be expected to take on more risk with less responsibility over typical 9-1-1 calls that do not require police presence. Just imagine a world with police officers who are willing to afford a person that extra second or two for the officer to make a positive and credible read of the situation. Had that happened here, the officer would have known one way or the other of the individual's actual intent. Without providing the individual those extra seconds, the officer stole from us any semblance of actual intent; we are only left with possible or potential intent (i.e., "potentially" reaching for the knife to then wield in violence). That was a presumption made by the officer because the law and protocol allows him to make such a presumption. Force officers to wait beyond the presumption portion of the assessment and force them to recognize and acknowledge behavior of actual, observable intent before shooting.

Oh, and force officers to wear body cams and to use dash cams. In this environment, there's zero excuse for any shooting incident to not be recorded; including the lead up to the shooting.

#65 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-08-31 04:39 PM | Reply

I checked with Eberly's quick guide to blogging and he says 45 posts, with a minimum of 5 days, is the preferred look-back.
#62 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If that's the case, it's a safe presumption that we are all struggling mightily, EBERLY.

That seems clear and a legitimate broad brush assessment to make, if there's ever one to be made.

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-08-31 04:41 PM | Reply

A knife, so scary

Check out some Doug Marcaido videos.

#67 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 05:31 PM | Reply

#67 by posting that I am not suggesting that this whole thing is anything else but a botched execution.

#68 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I really hate the thin blue line -------- from supposed public servants.

But in my heart I have to believe in the humanity of fellow persons.

I mean they can't say it but I know a lot of them must say "damn dude, hey my daughters birthday party is called off so don't come to my house anymore "

Well I hope that.

#69 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 05:45 PM | Reply

30+ years working as a prosecutor. He didn't hesitate..."totally justified".

What specifically did you ask him? I'd like to know. Was he aware of the case? Where does he get his news or understanding of it? All that matters, especially in today's world. I can just imagine what "Fox News" is casting it as.

You know what? I don't care. One more useless anecdote in a weak appeal to authority, while you all ignore SCOTUS and the American Bar's understanding of these matters.

Will the cop get off anyway? More than likely, but not because it was "justified" but because of limited immunity.

I know all too well how the police and DAs work and they are tied at the hip. That's an enormous part of the problem. The DAs count on the Police and evidence to get convictions. The police lie and cover for each other all the time because you don't want to cross someone that has your back and it may mean your life.

The system is broken, through and through, in too many municipalities and in too many ways.

#70 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 06:09 PM | Reply

"while you all ignore SCOTUS and the American Bar's understanding of these matters."

easy there....I'm not ignoring anything.

He had seen the news about it...saw the video.

"I know all too well how the police and DAs work and they are tied at the hip. That's an enormous part of the problem."

Anybody who's watched "Law and Order" and listened to the intro knows that.

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 06:13 PM | Reply

30+ years as a prosecutor, very respectable.

On the otherhand Kamela Harris is a cnnnnnnt

#72 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 06:15 PM | Reply

I actually have never watched "Law and Order."
I've also never seen "Jaws."

I don't have any explanation for it, either.

#73 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 06:16 PM | Reply

Apparently an admin doesn't like the link with the picture showing the knife in his hand

You think that blurry ass photo "shows a knife" in his hand? That object could be literally anything, or nothing at all. And your "link" is rife with misleading statements, as the WIDOJ report said a knife was in his car, not in his hand. Two very different things.

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2020-08-31 06:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#74 - exactly why I said and bolded my response in #6, but these folks are off and running, no slowing them down. My favorite part is how they know exactly what happened. Even some DA and some "cop buddy."

#75 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 06:32 PM | Reply

The video was grainy, really even with my myopia I could clearly see the man was black.

And what's with this grainy video malarkey? I can go on Google Earth and see the ------- in my backyard. Everybodies cell phones seem to take amazing videos.

#76 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 06:41 PM | Reply

#75 | POSTED BY YAV

There's a perceived need to stand up for the police right now. So they will bend over backwards to justify any police shooting, especially when the actions and circumstances line up with what's considered a 'clean shoot.'

Problem is the definition of a 'clean shoot' in the first place. Police reform includes the laws that establish police protocols. Defunding the Police is basically just trolling people into a conversation. Clearly, the vast majority of the population agree police have a valid and legitimate role in our society. I'm of the opinion that role should require less responsibilities and MORE compensation with the compromise that police will be more effectively trained in deescalation and to take more risks when confronting potentially dangerous individuals in public.

We should not expect an officer to take an extra 2 to 3 seconds to determine whether a suspect is reaching for a weapon or not when they are being paid $35,000 entry-level salary. We also should not expect police recruiters to be able to recruit highly qualified, previously trained candidates with such a low starting salary. There's a reason why many former military (especially combat trained military) are skipping the line leading into public policing service with such little compensation. I mean you're trying to recruit people who ACTUALLY KNOW the risks of of violence in the streets; those that are recruited end up being the most qualified and capable police officers. Many even turn into instructors at the academy because they are so qualified.

For me, "Defund the Police" starts here. And in all reality, "Defund the Police" is meant to troll authoritarian boot lickers into having a legitimate conversation about how policing is funded, the responsibilities police currently have and how that can be improved for their benefit and the benefit of the public, and to recognize that many of the issues we have with policing is based on the quality of candidates. Good luck finding a quality candidate for any industry when the starting salary is just above CA's minimum wage; that's especially true for individuals your giving responsibility to protect and serve while armed. The police culture is one in that protects all of the bad apples, so when people say these unjustified, extrajudicial killings are conducted at the hands of a 'few bad apples,' that's all well in good to assert. But it doesn't mean anything when the entire bunch of apples is fully protected from within. This is the part of culture that requires reform.

#77 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-08-31 06:51 PM | Reply

If the police can't keep these gang members out of the force, who can?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-31 06:55 PM | Reply

Kamala Harris on the ticket makes it a moot point anyway, from the armchair politics point of view.

Which is why she's such a good pick. Take away all the issues except Trump.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-31 06:57 PM | Reply

Being Vietnam era person the post office gave preferential treatment, which was cool, right Gracie. Friend of mine got special consideration riding the rails, cool too.Also know people that wanted to be police in the future and became MP, guess who they busted, fellow soldiers.

But people trained to conquer kill and occupy, sorry not the qualifications we should be looking for.

And no offense intended but this isn't Gomer Pyle and Sgt Carter ask Boaz.
Trained to kill.

#80 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 07:09 PM | Reply

And not to ramble on but

John McCain: they treated us rather poorly.

Really? You came halfway around the world to bomb my village.

Well democracy. Sorry South Vietnam wasn't a democracy at the time

#81 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 07:26 PM | Reply

"That object could be literally anything, or nothing at all."

Whatever it is, do the police have it?

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 07:35 PM | Reply

"My favorite lie is how I accuse them of claiming to know exactly what happened."

ft

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 07:39 PM | Reply

Eberly, if you are responding to a post please give the number.

Elsewise you sound like grampa Simpson

#84 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 07:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well democracy. Sorry South Vietnam wasn't a democracy at the time
#81 | POSTED BY BRUCEAZ

It was never about Democracy.

It was about Capitalism.

(Openkng trade with Japan and Korea was about Capitalism too. Even Lewis and Clarke, to an extent. Panama Canal, obviously. The spoils of Gunboat Diplomacy.)

And now that Vietnam has embraced Capitalism enough to provide a proletariat worker class?

American companies hire those workers instead of us.

It was never about Democracy.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-31 07:46 PM | Reply

Whatever it is, do the police have it?
#82 | POSTED BY EBERLY

They'll definitely be getting the Blue Flu sometime soon, when some city tries to rein them in, and they call out sick in protest.

It's kind of the thing you might do with you and your buddies in high school if you all wanted the same day off work together to go fishing or get high.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-31 07:48 PM | Reply

Snoofy, as an aerospace machinist I worked with ---- loads of them. Took awhile with the accent, especially if they were laughing. Great people, love good food and drink and funny as hell.

Some coworkers didn't agree.
And they tended to be republican.

#87 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 08:02 PM | Reply

#87 | POSTED BY BRUCEAZ

If you're responding to a post, please provide a number.

#88 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 08:15 PM | Reply

#88, lol

#89 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 08:17 PM | Reply

"30+ years as a prosecutor, very respectable.
On the otherhand Kamela Harris is a cnnnnnnt"

I think she's great.

#90 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 08:33 PM | Reply

#87 clarification : my Vietnamese pals tended to be republican .

One pal was conscripted to go fight Pol Pot. His family was well to do so his mom was sent to a reeducation facility. Being of that situation he was not allowed to carry a weapon.

Anyway as much as some folks hate Ho Chi Minh those folks got rid of Pol Pot.

Speaking of which, if Vietnam had been given independence like the Philippines history would be much different.

Like wise if Castro had been given a modicum of respect. Cause Batista was a piece of ---- that needed to be brought down.

And the shah,

Well the list goes on,if only this country actually acted like they believe their purported values.

#91 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 08:35 PM | Reply

The racist left? Who elected o'Bama twice. Oops we thought he was Irish.

#93 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 10:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#92 - that's quite a fantasy you've spun just so you could finally get to the only thing you ever say.
I really wish you were a little bit entertaining.

#94 | Posted by YAV at 2020-08-31 10:10 PM | Reply

Actually obey police orders . Well when you say it in the original gestapo German it is quite pretty.

#95 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 10:57 PM | Reply

Train all cops to be MMA fighters. Actually I don't think MMA fighters are allowed to use steroids.

#96 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 10:59 PM | Reply

And A those were his kids, course a black fellow could never love his kids because they were trained to think "don't get attached cause they'll just sell them"

Pretty much cover it 2 down boy .

Nnnnnnnggggrrrrs, come on say it with me

#97 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 11:06 PM | Reply

easy Bruce......you drinkin'?

I am...

#98 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 11:13 PM | Reply

I assume you're saying that because you've defended yourself in similar situations, Johnny
#55 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Defended myself from what? Someone with a knife who had their back turned to me and was walking away? I guess I've been in that situation countless times and never shot anyone in the back 7 times.

#99 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-08-31 11:14 PM | Reply

"I guess I've been in that situation countless times and never shot anyone in the back 7 times."

Neither did Chuck Norris.

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-31 11:15 PM | Reply

If I post more than once a day I am drinking. Still can't rinse the vile 2 down bile out of my throat though.

Otherwise I am having a fine day thank you

#101 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-08-31 11:19 PM | Reply

The cop should just open fire and not bother with the PIT maneuver like they did here.

Or maybe obey and end up murdered like Sandra Bland, or George Floyd.
Tough choices.

Glad I'm white and privileged.
Hell, I could shoot people and I'd get driven through McDonalds before being booked.

You believe in a RoboCop fantasy - before he developed awareness.

#103 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-01 07:32 AM | Reply

Snoofy, I don't know how you can look at the picture and not see he was carrying a karambit knife in his hand.

Oh wait, yes i can. You don't want to see it.

#104 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 07:52 AM | Reply

103. He has a knife in his hand. They have been giving commands the entire time he walked to his car and showed no interest in dropping it. He had already assaulted the police. They move in to arrest him, because he was under arrest.

If he dropped the knife as he moved in to arrest, him, and the cop knew he dropped it, then yes, the cop is wrong.

But if the knife was still in his hand, the cop is under NO obligation too wait for him to spin around, a move that takes less than a second, and stab him. Period. Full stop.

You can call that cowardice. You are wrong.

#105 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 08:11 AM | Reply

You don't know the settled law that dictates what LEGAL police response is.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[1]

It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.[2]:563"7

en.wikipedia.org

It's so typical that white privilege allows for whites to carry loaded weapons under the 2nd Amendment without even being questioned, yet a black person cannot hold ANY weapon - even when it has not been raised in any threatening manner towards another person - without said weapon being justification for shooting that person 7 times.

We can all see the video. And in it, Blake never once threatened the police officers and by ignoring whatever they were commanding made clear his intent to escape whatever arrest they were trying to execute. Fleeing the police is not a capital offense and it does not justify the use of deadly force when the suspect showed NO threat to their safety. Having a weapon was not illegal in and of itself. And it was impossible for Blake to use it with his back towards the officer who shot him, particularly in the narrow space of a vehicle's partially open door.

Blake and his family will become wealthy because the police violated his constitutional rights in their pursuit to apprehend him. The SCOTUS has clearly defined the authorized usage of deadly force by police, and nothing that happened to Blake is within their ruling.

#106 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-01 08:41 AM | Reply

106. Again. That doesn't apply. He wasn't shooting a fleeing felon. He had his hands on him when he shot him. He was shooting a subject already under arrest. If he had been several feet away, you'd have a point

He wasn't, so you don't.

#107 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 08:52 AM | Reply

BS. Blake was fleeing the second he broke away from them on the other side of the vehicle.

You cannot create your own set of facts. When a person is moving AWAY from those pursuing him, he is FLEEING, period.

You were told this in the first posts of this thread. Getting into a vehicle is not confronting police, it is fleeing police. Are you really that detached from reality that you cannot admit common sense, simple truth?

Having a hand on Blake did not suddenly make him "caught". The police were not allowed to use deadly force in the apprehension of Blake. They violated his 4th Amendment rights and they will pay for it eventually.

#108 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-01 09:10 AM | Reply

"We can all see the video. And in it, Blake never once threatened the police officers.."

can you hear what he said in the video?

#109 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-01 09:13 AM | Reply

You are absolutely incorrect. He waited all the way until his hand wad on him to arrest him.

You are twisting reality in order to fit your narrative. He was under arrest. The officer grabbed him in order to place hand cuffs on him. he had a knife in his hand.

You can try to put all kinds of bull crap into it about his intent being to flee, but that is literally the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

In your world, what? The cop would have to fully tackle him onto the ground and fight the cuffs onto him before the act of his fleeing is done? I don't think even you believe that.

#110 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 09:27 AM | Reply

"Blake and his family will become wealthy..."

No doubt a civil suit will be filed and an award being given to him.

But Mr. Blake has some other issues going on......I wouldn't say he's ever going to be "wealthy".

#111 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-01 09:31 AM | Reply

#109

I was speaking to a physical threat Eberly.

In reality, I don't think anyone in the public knows what happened and what was said during the initial part of the situation but for witnesses and those involved.

It may turn out that Blake did far more than we see in the video, but until that becomes actual fact, the video confirms that Blake was attempting to flee the police.

There are only three physical realities. One, he moves towards the police which can be interpreted as threatening. We didn't see that. Two, he stands still in place - which also can be interpreted as threatening if he's wielding a weapon. We did not see that. And three, he moves away from the police. THAT is what we saw in the video. Arguing that he was doing something different than moving away from the police isn't based in reality.

#112 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-01 09:32 AM | Reply

He waited all the way until his hand wad on him to arrest him.

What are you babbling about? Do you have eyes in the back of your head? Do you know what people are doing behind you?

Do you have an inkling of an idea just how stupid you sound right now? Blake WAS NOT under arrest because he hadn't been apprehended! That's the freaking point, Einstein. Blake was FLEEING arrest!

Get it through your thick skull.

The cop would have to fully tackle him onto the ground and fight the cuffs onto him before the act of his fleeing is done?

Yes! A suspect is just that until the police APPREHEND him. What do you call a bank robber that escapes from police pursuit? Do you call him "arrested" when he's sitting on a beach spending his stolen money?

#113 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-01 09:37 AM | Reply

And the SCOTUS clearly ruled that LEO cannot use deadly force to APPREHEND a fleeing suspect unless they imminently threatens them or others.

The ruling is based on what the suspect is doing, not the police. All you keep babbling about is what the police were doing and what they were trying to get done, which of course was to apprehend Blake. But words do not place anyone "under arrest." Under arrest means in the physical control of the police. Blake wasn't in their control until the cop dumped 7 slugs into his body - THEN he was apprehended and under their control.

#114 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-01 09:43 AM | Reply

I'd like to see what Moder8 thinks about this.

I talked to a former DA (now a judge).

I'd like to hear from a public defender.

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-01 09:51 AM | Reply

He has a knife in his hand

Here is the only mention of a knife in the Wisconsin DOJ's summary of the incident:

During the investigation following the initial incident, Mr. Blake admitted that he had a knife in his possession. DCI agents recovered a knife from the driver's side floorboard of Mr. Blake's vehicle. A search of the vehicle located no additional weapons.
www.doj.state.wi.us
Additionally, when asked whether officers knew about the knife during the incident, the WI AG demurred:
It is unclear whether responding officers knew Blake had a knife. Attorney General Josh Kaul in a news conference was asked repeatedly about it and declined to be more specific.
www.jsonline.com
You, a badge bunny, do not know more about this incident than the Wisconsin Department of Justice. You, a badge bunny, should therefore STFU.

#116 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 10:06 AM | Reply

116

Tony needs someone to insult talk to about this.

#117 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-01 10:35 AM | Reply

#117

? Why mention me when referring to Joe's post? I never took issue with the photos which appear to show something in Blake's hand. I said that Blake never appeared to threaten the officers during the course of his travels from one side of the vehicle into the open driver's side door where he was shot 7 times in the back.

#118 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-01 10:41 AM | Reply

-Why mention me when referring to Joe's post?

why not?

#119 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-01 10:44 AM | Reply

If he's a badge bunny, does that make you a pedeophile bunny? You certainly are twisting yourself in knots to defend an accused child diddler.

#120 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-09-01 10:47 AM | Reply

Re: #120

He's not a Trump supporter

#121 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-01 10:48 AM | Reply

You can call that cowardice. You are wrong.

#105 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 08:11 AM

No I'm not.

Any ass---- can pump seven rounds into someone's back. I don't know why we have to pay specially uniformed officials to do it.

#122 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 10:49 AM | Reply

120

Blake is an accused child diddler? I though it was sexual assault with an adult?

#123 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-01 10:50 AM | Reply

If he's a badge bunny, does that make you a pedeophile bunny? You certainly are twisting yourself in knots to defend an accused child diddler.

I never defended anyone, moron. I said that Blake having a knife "in his hand" is a fact not in evidence. Try reading, i know that's difficult for some.

#124 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 10:52 AM | Reply

Let me ask you this:

If you jerk your shoulder away from a police officer trying to arrest you are you "fleeing?" Or "resisting arrest?"

Now same question, if you are armed with a knife at the time, same question....

Good luck with those goal posts. They sure look heavy.

#125 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 10:57 AM | Reply

Nice try joe. There is an actually picture of him holding the knife, seconds before he was shot.

#126 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 10:58 AM | Reply

Good luck with those goal posts.

#125 | Posted by ABH at 2020

I didn't move any. Disciplined men have an obligation not to bushwack.

#127 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 11:13 AM | Reply

I see you can't answer the question. There are only two options. Was he fleeing when the officer put his hand on him to arrest him? Or was he resisting arrest.

Spoiler alert! The law says he is resisting arrest..... while armed with a deadly weapon.

So again, the officer is under no obligation to wait to be stuck in the neck with said knife.

#128 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 11:16 AM | Reply

So again, the officer is under no obligation to wait to be stuck in the neck with said knife.

#128 | Posted by ABH at 2020

No obligation to adhere to any higher standard.

#129 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 11:19 AM | Reply

Under the law? Nope.

#130 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 11:21 AM | Reply

No one is ever going to get a medal for shooting someone in the back.

#131 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 11:21 AM | Reply

Reminds me of that dirty little coward, who shot Mr. Howard.

Jesse James was a bad and dangerous man. Assassinating him by shooting him in the back made his killer famous as a worse man.

#132 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 11:23 AM | Reply

Who cares? No one said he should. Why is that important. Being "not wrong" doesn't mean he was Joe Hero.

#133 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 11:23 AM | Reply

No one said he should.

#133 | Posted by ABH

YOU don't.

#134 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 11:24 AM | Reply

Fair.

#135 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 11:25 AM | Reply

It is interesting to me that the police are the first to castigate ordinary citizens for not attending to their better angels, but are chronically excused for not attending to their own.

#136 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-No one is ever going to get a medal for shooting someone in the back.

Didn't John Kerry get one for doing that?

#137 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-01 11:32 AM | Reply

Didn't John Kerry get one for doing that?

#137 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-

He got the Silver Star for charging into a position of VC and routing them.

#138 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-01 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nice try joe. There is an actually picture of him holding the knife, seconds before he was shot.

There is an excessively grainy photo with a few dark curved pixels near his hand, which could literally be any object and has not been confirmed by the WI DOJ to be a knife. Keep lying, liar.

#139 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 11:48 AM | Reply

Under the law? Nope.

You ran from the last thread when I asked you what the law was in Wisconsin regarding when police can use lethal force and how it applies to this case. I won't bother asking again since you will never actually discuss this.

#140 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 11:49 AM | Reply

Keep believing that, joe. And disbelieving your own eyes with the picture.

Maybe you should try sticking your finger in your ears and shout "lalalalalala" maybe that will keep the truth out.

#141 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 11:52 AM | Reply

Still waiting. I won't hold my breath.

#142 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 12:31 PM | Reply

In order to explain Wisconsin law to you, I found this excellent article/ video.

www.mcfarland.wi.us

I am not going to explain it to you in detail, you can draw your own conclusions. All I will say is all three defenses that would cover the officer apply here.

#143 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 12:46 PM | Reply

"103. He has a knife in his hand."

What's going on?
There's two knives now?
The knife is his hand, and the knife in the car?

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 01:20 PM | Reply

No. He dropped it either before or after he was shot.

If it was before, the officer is in serious trouble and should be. If it was after, then the officer was right.

There are pictures of him with it and everything.

#145 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 01:25 PM | Reply

"He dropped it either before or after he was shot."

If he dropped it before he was shot, then what's in his hand?
???

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 01:26 PM | Reply

it's only going to take one moron of twelve like abh to ruin a fair trial.

our system sucks.

#147 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-09-01 01:28 PM | Reply

In order to explain Wisconsin law to you, I found this excellent article/ video

Weird, since you accused so many of misunderstanding "the law" i thought that meant you knew the law. I can google articles too, thanks.

No. He dropped it either before or after he was shot.

Not even the WI DOJ says he had the knife in his hand. This is your own fantasy until it's alleged by the State.

#148 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 01:33 PM | Reply

Snoofy: mean if he dropped it onto the floorboard off the car as he reached in, before he was shot.... the officer is in trouble. If he dropped it onto the floorboard AFTER he was shot than the officer is cleared, and with good reason.

147: the difference is, I can see all sides clearly. You have some Pretty thick and narrow blinders.

It is possible to know that if Blake was holding a karambit fighting knife at the time of his arrest, the officer is justified in shooting him, while at the same time knowing Rittenhouse is a complete piece of trash and needs to do 25 to life along with his mother doing 10 to 20 as an accessory.

Objectivity is everything. And something this country is sorely lacking.

#149 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

148. Would you prefer I explained why I am right? Or demonstrated with sources why I am right? Don't be foolish. You are better than that.

#150 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 01:35 PM | Reply

"It is possible to know that if Blake was holding a karambit fighting knife at the time of his arrest, the officer is justified in shooting him"

Was he ever ordered to drop the knife?

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 01:37 PM | Reply

Does the police report say he had a knife in his hand, ABH?

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 01:38 PM | Reply

Has the police report been published?

#153 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 01:39 PM | Reply

It hasn't even been written.

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 01:46 PM | Reply

Follow up question: if the police report clearly states he was holding the knife in his left hand, police ordered him to stop and drop the weapon, and then attempted to arrest him, souring him because he continued to hold the weapon, will you believe it? Or just assume they are lying and it's all a cover up?

If you will believe it, then fine.

But if it's the second option, you are seriously lacking in objectivity, or you are purposefully being obtuse in asking the question.

#155 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 01:47 PM | Reply

Follow up question: if the police report makes no mention he was holding the knife in his left hand...

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 01:49 PM | Reply

Then as I have said, the Officer absolutely should be in trouble.

I can be objective. Can you say the same?

#157 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 01:50 PM | Reply

Not surprising that the police officers Union places the officers actions in the most favorable light possible. I would expect nothing less from the Union. Just as I would expect Jacob Blake's family and supporters to place those actions in the worst light imaginable. Both sides have very real and concrete financial and ideological reasons to lie about what occurred.

At the end of the day, when all the shouting and disputing of the facts is over, I still can not wrap my head around why the police possibly felt it was necessary to shoot this man SEVEN TIMES in the back. It just defies any reasonable explanation the Union can come up with. There is no honest argument that the police handled the situation "correctly".

#158 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-09-01 03:16 PM | Reply

Moder8: I don't think there is one way out would have been done "correctly". I do think there are many "not wrong" ways, this being one.

#159 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 03:49 PM | Reply

Moder8: Not to hijack my own thread, but from a legal stand point, I respect your opinion. How do you feel about the self defense claim by rittenhouse?

#160 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 03:57 PM | Reply

if the police report clearly states he was holding the knife in his left hand

Why "if?" You claim it's a settled fact he was holding the knife. Hedging now?

#161 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 05:43 PM | Reply

Did you not follow the discussion with snoofy? Do you need reading help? He was asking about the police report and specifically how it pertains to Blake holding the knife. So I posed a question to him. Snoofy was just worried about what the police report might say.

There is no question he is holding the knife. But the question is, do the police know he is holding it. If the police report says they did know and were reacting to it, that's pretty important part of the narrative.

#162 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 06:05 PM | Reply

There is no question he is holding the knife.

You are not capable of objective discussion if you are willing to make that statement based on what's in the record.

#163 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-01 06:07 PM | Reply

"Snoofy was just worried about what the police report might say."

The lack of a police report this long after the incident should be very troubling for anyone who expects forthright honesty and accountability from the police.

ABH just isn't one of those people.

#164 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 06:11 PM | Reply

Or. It is written and just not made public yet.

That you can't be the tiniest bit objective about the police is very troubling.

#165 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 06:20 PM | Reply

#165 It doesn't fit his narrative, or his word play games.

#166 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-09-01 06:23 PM | Reply

"Or. It is written and just not made public yet."

And why exactly would the police withhold the report, if it exonerates the police?

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 06:29 PM | Reply

Withhold? What the hell? Not every aspect of an ongoing investigation is EVER made public. Nor should it be.

#168 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 06:32 PM | Reply

You really do see police boogey men everywhere, don't you?

#169 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 06:33 PM | Reply

"Not every aspect of an ongoing investigation is EVER made public. "

Dude.
A police report is not one of those aspects that's kept secret.
You truly see no need for accountability or oversight when it comes to the police.

Did you ever watch that video of the cop gunning down the drunk driver for no reason?
Why don't you read that police report and tell us how well it captures what is seen on the video.

Or for that matter, have you read the Breonna Taylor police report?
How well does it capture what happened?

#170 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 06:36 PM | Reply

When you resort to lies, you've lost.

I absolutely advocate for oversight. I think civilian review panels should conduct oversight of all use of force incidents. And I have multiple times, here.

As for anecdotal evidence from other cases. It's just that. You world never accept, "but I had a case the police investigated, and everything went perfect." Why? Because it's anecdotal.

#171 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 06:41 PM | Reply

Who's lying?

The police haven't even released their report, and you're calling people liars?

Meanwhile, the AG has made statements, and there's no mention of a knife in his hand.

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 06:45 PM | Reply

I'm calling you a liar for stating that I don't see a need for accountability.

#173 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 06:46 PM | Reply

Good lord. Stop arguing and insulting each other and go find the facts.

When DCI is the lead investigating agency of a shooting involving a law enforcement officer, DCI aims to provide a report of the incident to the prosecutor within 30 days. The prosecutor then reviews the report and makes a determination about what charges, if any, are appropriate. If the prosecutor determines there is no basis for prosecution of the law enforcement officer, DCI will thereafter make the report available to the public. www.doj.state.wi.us

#174 | Posted by et_al at 2020-09-01 07:26 PM | Reply

ABH: I question whether Rittenhouse can get a fair trial. The amount of passion and anger these events have aroused makes it hard for me to believe that any 'reasonable' juror has not been heavily influenced by what they have read and heard over the last several weeks. In my mind I analogize it to the OJ trial. OJ was guilty as hell but he got a fast unanimous verdict of not guilty. In that case the passion and anger were mainly focused on the prosecution and the LAPD. In Rittenhouse's case, I could easily see a jury gladly convicting him of multiple murders even if a better verdict would have been manslaughter or even an acquittal given potential self defense issues. The anger and disillusionment people feel toward law enforcement right now is unprecedented. Nobody can ignore the background scenario of a black man being shot seven times in the back. Rittenhouse, killing two people who were protesting that outrage, goes in with more than two strikes against him. I would like to see this trial take place somewhere other than in Wisconsin.

To answer your question, I think Rittenhouse will be convicted of murder. And I am not certain it will be a just verdict.

#175 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-09-01 07:37 PM | Reply

That's a fair Assessment. Thank you. I think the kid is a piece of crap because he went out of his's way to just go and be an -----. He had no business there. Wisconsin's self defense laws specifically exclude provoking an attack and then claiming self defense. I believe his very presence there was an intentional provocation, relieving Him of any self defense claims.... but man. The whole thing is going to be tough sledding.

#176 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 08:26 PM | Reply

I'm calling you a liar for stating that I don't see a need for accountability.
#173 | POSTED BY ABH

^
So you think the accountability for the cop in the video who shot the drunk driver was sufficient?

#177 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 11:33 PM | Reply

You think the accountability for the cops who killed Breonna Taylor is sufficient?

#178 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-01 11:34 PM | Reply

So much anecdotal argument. Quit trying to obfuscate from this issue. Sometimes it really is the trees that need to be addressed and not the forest.

#179 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-01 11:38 PM | Reply

You're dodging the question.

This killing is not so cut and dry, I'll certainly grant you that. Even you've said this one could go either way.

But the others, not so much.
The drunk driver, clean kill?
Breonna Taylor, clean kill?
Tamir Rice, clean kill?
Philando Castile, clean kill?

There's a forest all right.

#180 | Posted by Snoofy at 2020-09-02 12:03 AM | Reply

Those were all clean kills.

#181 | Posted by zetaleph at 2020-09-02 12:51 AM | Reply

Felony evasion with an open warrant for sexual assault, at the home of the person they are accused of sexually assaulting. Have the police even been charged?

#182 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-09-02 09:21 AM | Reply

Since we have all viewed the video of the shooting, sorry I just can't respect those defending the cop that did the shooting. Your political bias is causing you to not believe your own lying eyes and instead believe the distorted story pushed by right wing media. You know it is true, I know it is true, it is just stupid to even debate it.

#183 | Posted by danni at 2020-09-02 10:10 AM | Reply

Since we have all viewed the video of the shooting, sorry I just can't respect those demonizing the officer that did the shooting. Your political bias is causing you to not believe your own lying eyes and instead believe the distorted story pushed by the media. You know it's true, I know it's true, it is just stupid to debate it.

FTFY.

#184 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-02 11:11 AM | Reply

Felony evasion with an open warrant for sexual assault
#182 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

For evasion to constitute a felony in Wisconsin you need to be in your vehicle fleeing law enforcement after receiving a signal to stop your car. Try again, armchair lawyer.

#185 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-02 11:12 AM | Reply

I question whether Rittenhouse can get a fair trial.

With Rittenhouse's lawyers trying their case on twitter and appearing on Fox News, i question whether the State can get a fair trial.

#186 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-02 11:13 AM | Reply

You and I can agree on that, Joe. Though in this age of stories broadcast worldwide instantly, is impossible to find anyone that hasn't heard of the case and at least formed an opinion. There are only excluded if they can't stay open minded to evidence, but it's not going to be easy to pick a jury. But I bet that little punk pleas out. He won't risk the years. And if he pleas, he can do it before the Fed's her a chance to file a case, which they will usually drop if he takes a state plea. That would be some real time.

#187 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-02 12:01 PM | Reply

Though in this age of stories broadcast worldwide instantly, is impossible to find anyone that hasn't heard of the case and at least formed an opinion.

That doesn't absolve Rittenhouse's "lawyers" for spreading arguments and theories on social media and cable news instead of just keeping their heads down and fighting the case. They are running a PR game and selling t-shirts, not engaging in a good faith legal defense effort.

#188 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-02 12:11 PM | Reply

I can't argue with that. They are doing what they think is best for their client.... but that doesn't make it less sh**ty.

#189 | Posted by ABH at 2020-09-02 12:18 PM | Reply

183... don't try and think for me Danni and tell me how I'm reaching my conclusion. You're not nearly smart enough.

#190 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-09-02 12:20 PM | Reply

They are doing what they think is best for their client....

I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. They aren't even criminal defense attorneys. It seems to me they've latched onto a tragedy and are engaging in shameless self-promotion and fundraising. Why can't the named partner and owner of an LA law firm self-finance one pro bono case? Why do they have to sell t-shirts?

#191 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-02 01:01 PM | Reply

"Since we have all viewed the video of the shooting, sorry I just can't respect those demonizing the officer that did the shooting."

But then you're nuts.

#192 | Posted by danni at 2020-09-02 01:20 PM | Reply

For evasion to constitute a felony in Wisconsin you need to be in your vehicle fleeing law enforcement after receiving a signal to stop your car. Try again, armchair lawyer.

#185 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2020-09-02 11:12 AM | FLAG:

Oh I'm sorry. It's Felony Resisting Arrest.

"Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony: (a) Refuses to comply with an officer's lawful attempt to take him or her into custody."

Colloquially known as evading arrest.

Douche.

#193 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-09-03 09:11 AM | Reply

The police used the Force Pyramid as designed, and that's the same pyramid Defund Police are screaming everbody has to have even though the vast majority of departments already have it.

Kyle will probably walk. Jacob won't.

#194 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-09-03 09:13 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort