Officer(s) who shot Jacob Blake will NOT be charged

These things should not even be news. Worst thing is those guys will never be able to live in peace anywhere they live because of a criminal.

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Tempter

I don't know the circumstances in this incident but I don't see any justification for shooting a man in the back 6 or 7 times unless you're trying to kill him.

Dude was wanted for a sexual assault charge.
Dude had a restraint , criminal trespass , and disorderly conduct for domestic violence warrant against him .

Shooting of Jacob Blake

You shoot until the threat is nullified.

Exactly! A known violent criminal acting in an irrational manner, while armed, deserves the treatment he received. The left isn't bothered by pesky facts, only feelings.

Amazing how may liberals can't stand morality and laws , isn't it ?

originally posted by: ReadLeader
Please be safe, prayers ABOUND - headed to you - your family, your loved ones!!!!


G reply to: Tempter

Very nice of you, thank you.

What I don't get is the AA civil rights leaders will tell their own children DONT GET IN FIGHTS WITH COPS ON THE STREET!

But won't get on national TV and tell young black men TO STOP GETTING IN FIGHTS WITH COPS ON THE STREET OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

That might save lives. Which should be the goal after justice for legitimate police brutality events are administered.

a reply to: Tempter

Now why would ESPN be reporting on this as a top headline?

www.espn.com...

The virtue signaling has become ridiculous.

Basketball fan from birth. My loyalty has run out.

Screw all the puppets.

Nobody gets out of the earth school alive.

Karma is a bitch.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I need to find me a good bookie, it’s a sure thing...

So, the left, antifa or whatever label you want doesn't care if someone is an amoral criminal, but wants you in a guillotine or reeducation camp if you're a trump supporter?

Am I getting clown world right?

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Tempter

I don't know the circumstances in this incident but I don't see any justification for shooting a man in the back 6 or 7 times unless you're trying to kill him.

Officer's are trained to shoot to kill, not shoot to wound.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Tempter

I don't know the circumstances in this incident but I don't see any justification for shooting a man in the back 6 or 7 times unless you're trying to kill him.

Officer's are trained to shoot to kill, not shoot to wound.

Officers are trained to end the threat, not to “shoot to kill.”

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Tempter

I don't know the circumstances in this incident but I don't see any justification for shooting a man in the back 6 or 7 times unless you're trying to kill him.

Officer's are trained to shoot to kill, not shoot to wound.

Officers are trained to end the threat, not to “shoot to kill.”

When officers fire their weapon there are only three things they would be trying to achieve. Either they are trying to miss you, trying to wound you or trying to kill you. They damn sure aren't trying to miss and they are NOT trained to shoot to wound so that only leaves us with shoot to kill.

If they wanted to use LESS THAN deadly force they would use pepper spray or a baton or their fist. When they pull their firearm and shoot they are using DEADLY force.

SOU RCE

another source

yet another source

So yeah, like I said they shoot to kill not shoot to wound.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Tempter

I don't know the circumstances in this incident but I don't see any justification for shooting a man in the back 6 or 7 times unless you're trying to kill him.

The courts said it was fine, and if I've learned anything in the past couple months its that the court would do something if the law was broken, therefore the cop who shot Jacob committed no crime!

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yea, no officers are trained to end the threat. We, as in those of us with a badge and gun and actual training, don’t particularly care whether the threat is ended because they went lights out or because gross motor function ended and you can’t continue to be a threat due to wounds. That’s why law enforcement agencies talk about ending threats when they shoot people rather than talking about trying to kill somebody when they shoot.

You should probably have actually read what you cited, for what it’s worth.

Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent should be to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible.

Ergo, the intent is to stop the threat, not to kill.

So yea, like I said: law enforcement shoots to end the threat, not to specifically kill, wound, scare, induce involuntary bowel movement, or anything else. But please, do continue to google me sources confirming what I said.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yea, no officers are trained to end the threat. We, as in those of us with a badge and gun and actual training, don’t particularly care whether the threat is ended because they went lights out or because gross motor function ended and you can’t continue to be a threat due to wounds. That’s why law enforcement agencies talk about ending threats when they shoot people rather than talking about trying to kill somebody when they shoot.

You should probably have actually read what you cited, for what it’s worth.

Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent should be to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible.

Ergo, the intent is to stop the threat, not to kill.

So yea, like I said: law enforcement shoots to end the threat, not to specifically kill, wound, scare, induce involuntary bowel movement, or anything else. But please, do continue to google me sources confirming what I said.

Makes sense. Question.: when you pull your gun and shoot the "threat" are you using deadly force?

a reply to: Tempter

I’m local and something was shown on the news tonight that wasn’t exposed before.
The officer Tased Jacob Blake and he ripped the tasers out. It does make me feel a bit
Different about the case.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I understand what you are saying though dude, it isn't in your interest to kill the person, you are just trying to use the last resort which is your firearm in order to stop the threat. Wheather your use of deadly force kills the person or not is irrelevant as long as that use of deadly force incapacitated the person to the point where they are no longer a threat correct?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

“Deadly force” has a specific legal definition. That definition is a level of force that a reasonable person would believe likely to cause either death or serious bodily injury. A police officer doesn’t, or shouldn’t be anyway, breaking holster with the intent to kill anybody.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Alien Abduct

“Deadly force” has a specific legal definition. That definition is a level of force that a reasonable person would believe likely to cause either death or serious bodily injury. A police officer doesn’t, or shouldn’t be anyway, breaking holster with the intent to kill anybody.

Right I get your point, I concede that an officer shouldn't intend and in almost all cases they don't.

However as stated above...Wheather your use of deadly force kills the person or not is irrelevant as long as that use of deadly force incapacitated the person to the point where they are no longer a threat is this correct?

Wow, this thread is quite the factory of hate, and veiled racism, and misinformation.

Did anybody even see the video of the event? Blake was walking into his car, and the pig shot him in the back, multiple times. At close range, in front of his children.

That's the actual event, and this whole thread of hate-mongering, doesn't even mention or respond to the real sequence of events.

So the question isn't trying to justify the cops shooting him, in the back, multiple times, in front of his kids, while he was trying to enter his car.

The question is: Do we really want cops randomly attempting to murder people, from behind, as they get into their car?

Like, next time your mom or grandmother is at the grocery store, would you like the same cop to try to shoot her to death, as she tries to get into her car?

It comes down to basic morality, and basic human decency / civilization...

The cop deserves to rot in prison, and the victim of his attempted murder, deserves a healthy settlement.

a reply to: Shamrock6

A police officer doesn’t, or shouldn’t be anyway, breaking holster with the intent to kill anybody.

I highly respect your opinions and expertise. But how can "breaking holster" represent anything other than a presentation of lethal force?

a reply to: Phage

It doesn’t represent anything other than that. A firearm is deadly force, and deadly force is a level of force in law intended to kill or inflict great bodily injury. There’s a difference between shooting with the intent to kill and shooting with the intent to stop a threat.