Here We Go Again (Kenosha, WI)

[Ibanez]

[tweet][/tweet]

Ok, so he's outside the car, hands are always in complete sight.

He's being aggressive, but the officer is repeatedly de-escalating by keeping distance between herself and the citizen being arrested. Great police work here. She's not losing her cool by plugging the assclown just for being a dick. Her life is not in danger. No member of the public is endangered.

Finally, when he accelerates at her, she delivers lethal force. Fortunately, the lethal force she delivered did not kill the assclown (Or maybe he did die? I don't know). The act of accelerating at the officer endangered her life, as the man is bigger and stronger than she is. If he was able to get on top of her, he could have disarmed and killed her.

I can assure you that, at any point, he had moved toward his vehicle and tried to open the door, he would have shot in the back enough times so that no lives would be endangered.

That video doesn't show the seconds prior to shots so how do we know he charged the officer? The video cuts away, and then the next time you see him he's going down. I'm not sure you can say definitively that he charged her.

[93henfan]

[CID1990]

Why weren't the cops giving Blake his space? He didn't have the weapon in his hand. His hands were visible. If one existed it was in the car and was a knife.

Certainly would seem the cops in Kenosha lost their cool plugging the "assclown" for being a dick. Their lives were not in danger. No member of the public was in danger.

The spin on this would be funny if it wasn't sad.

You seem to be missing the point (intentionally?) that when he opens the car door, the officer has no idea what comes next. The assumption is going to be that he is going to pull out a deadly weapon.

In the Blake situation, the officers let Blake (who was being arrested) walk all the way around the car without firing a shot. When he opened the door, the equation changed. For all the officer knew, there could have been a gun on the door.

Again, in the video you posted, the citizen being arrested did not open the car door. And yelling death threats at the officer wouldn't justify plugging him, unless he was actually armed.

This situation is dramatically different than the George Floyd case. There, an officer knelt on the neck of a man, already under control, until his life was extinguished.

You have to have three conditions for the use of deadly force.

Opportunity, ability, and jeopardy.

Given the few facts I have heard about the Kenosha shooting, I think the first two may have been satisfied, but I’m not yet seeing the third.

But when these things are examined in court, the standard of “information available to the officer in that moment” that would lead a person to believe that the officer acted reasonably comes in to play. Depending on the totality of the circumstances and what was said by the victim, this could still wind up being justified. But the “jeopardy” part of the equation is not apparent to me from the video. We also now know there was no additional weapon in the car aside from the knife, so that takes away the possibility that the officer saw another weapon in the car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Winterborn]

[93henfan]

Btw, the fact that kid is urban patrolling with a rifle that fucking long and still pwned an armed mob trying to kill him makes it all the more epic.

[Winterborn]

Btw, the fact that kid is urban patrolling with a rifle that fucking long and still pwned a mob trying to kill him makes it all the more epic.

I saw that L Lin Wood (Sandmann's attorney) is looking to represent the kid.

[JoltinJoe]

You seem to be missing the point (intentionally?) that when he opens the car door, the officer has no idea what comes next. The assumption is going to be that he is going to pull out a deadly weapon.

In the Blake situation, the officers let Blake (who was being arrested) walk all the way around the car without firing a shot. When he opened the door, the equation changed. For all the officer knew, there could have been a gun on the door.

Again, in the video you posted, the citizen being arrested did not open the car door. And yelling death threats at the officer wouldn't justify plugging him, unless he was actually armed.

This situation is dramatically different than the George Floyd case. There, an officer knelt on the neck of a man, already under control, until his life was extinguished.

You have to have three conditions for the use of deadly force.

Opportunity, ability, and jeopardy.

Given the few facts I have heard about the Kenosha shooting, I think the first two may have been satisfied, but I’m not yet seeing the third.

But when these things are examined in court, the standard of “information available to the officer in that moment” that would lead a person to believe that the officer acted reasonably comes in to play. Depending on the totality of the circumstances and what was said by the victim, this could still wind up being justified. But the “jeopardy” part of the equation is not apparent to me from the video. We also now know there was no additional weapon in the car aside from the knife, so that takes away the possibility that the officer saw another weapon in the car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

[93henfan]

Btw, the fact that kid is urban patrolling with a rifle that fucking long and still pwned a mob trying to kill him makes it all the more epic.

I saw that L Lin Wood (Sandmann's attorney) is looking to represent the kid.

GoFundMe shut down all fundraisers supporting the kid, but you can donate to his legal team. I will be donating. I may need them myself someday at the rate these mobs are popping up. I will not be a victim of left-wing extremism.

https://fightback.law/

[UNI88]

[tweet][/tweet]

Facing the cop:
Not reaching into a car:

Wide open area, no confined spaces, hands clearly visible, etc. etc. etc.
Guy dropped like a sack of 'taters after the first shot.

I'm sure CID can explain further, but the two situations don't compare in the least.

They're different but he is threatening the office so there are some similarities. My first thought was that the cop was foolish to keep backing up like that. Too big of a risk that they could trip and fall and put yourself at a disadvantage. CID, would the tactically correct approach have been to stand your ground and fire if the person continued to advance, before they were close enough to grab your weapon?

[Winterborn]

I saw that L Lin Wood (Sandmann's attorney) is looking to represent the kid.

GoFundMe shut down all fundraisers supporting the kid, but you can donate to his legal team. I will be donating. I may need them myself someday at the rate these mobs are popping up. I will not be a victim of left-wing extremism.

https://fightback.law/

I saw that. They had over 70k there when it was pulled down. Guess they are shooting to be the new change.org......

[clenz]

You have to have three conditions for the use of deadly force.

Opportunity, ability, and jeopardy.

Given the few facts I have heard about the Kenosha shooting, I think the first two may have been satisfied, but I’m not yet seeing the third.

But when these things are examined in court, the standard of “information available to the officer in that moment” that would lead a person to believe that the officer acted reasonably comes in to play. Depending on the totality of the circumstances and what was said by the victim, this could still wind up being justified. But the “jeopardy” part of the equation is not apparent to me from the video. We also now know there was no additional weapon in the car aside from the knife, so that takes away the possibility that the officer saw another weapon in the car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

Would it not be they put themselves on jeopardy by following him so closely?

Look at the other video where it was clear the person had a weapon in hand, charging them, and making clear threats against life of officer. That officer was backing up to avoid being in jeopardy. It would seem of those officers were in jeopardy is is because they did not detain Blake and followed him far too closely into an unknown situation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

GoFundMe shut down all fundraisers supporting the kid, but you can donate to his legal team. I will be donating. I may need them myself someday at the rate these mobs are popping up. I will not be a victim of left-wing extremism.

https://fightback.law/

I saw that. They had over 70k there when it was pulled down. Guess they are shooting to be the new change.org......

Long overdue. TIme to check the left. You let little dogs yap for a little while, and then you kick them in their fucking face.

[∞∞∞]

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

Yup, and that's the exact problem: the presumption everyone is an immediate, mortal threat during a confrontation. It's an asymmetric issue where a person's freedom to life has little chance against police training. That's the point of these protests.

Most of us have dealt with people acting angry, unresponsively, or erratically. It doesn't typically end in grave violence, and there's no reason it should with police. Patience, time, and simply letting things go is a friend during heightened emotions.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

Would it not be they put themselves on jeopardy by following him so closely?

Look at the other video where it was clear the person had a weapon in hand, charging them, and making clear threats against life of officer. That officer was backing up to avoid being in jeopardy. It would seem of those officers were in jeopardy is is because they did not detain Blake and followed him far too closely into an unknown situation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

They were arresting him. He walked away, toward his car, and opened the car door. Who knows what happens next, once his hands are in the car.

If the guy in your video had walked toward his car and opened the door, he would have been shot right then and there too.

[89Hen]

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

Yup, and that's the exact problem: the presumption everyone is an immediate, mortal threat during a confrontation. It's an asymmetric issue where a person's freedom to life has little chance against police training. That's the point of these protests.

Most of us have dealt with people acting angry, unresponsively, or erratically. It doesn't typically end in grave violence, and there's no reason it should with police. Patience, time, and simply letting things go is a friend during heightened emotions.

And that's why you're an engineer and not in charge of policing.

[Baldy]

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

Would it not be they put themselves on jeopardy by following him so closely?

Look at the other video where it was clear the person had a weapon in hand, charging them, and making clear threats against life of officer. That officer was backing up to avoid being in jeopardy. It would seem of those officers were in jeopardy is is because they did not detain Blake and followed him far too closely into an unknown situation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

They tried to taze him twice, but both attempts failed. I've heard reports that he was yelling he was going to kill them while he was walking around his car. When his hands disappear from view inside the car, all bets are off.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

Yup, and that's the exact problem: the presumption everyone is an immediate, mortal threat during a confrontation. It's an asymmetric issue where a person's freedom to life has little chance against police training. That's the point of these protests.

Most of us have dealt with people acting angry, unresponsively, or erratically. It doesn't typically end in grave violence, and there's no reason it should with police. Patience, time, and simply letting things go is a friend during heightened emotions.

If that's what the protests are about, then the protesters need to go home and think it over.

Is the officer supposed to wait until they know the citizen is armed before taking action?

Because if that's going to be the rule, then there are going to be a lot of dead officers. They are acting within police protocol, and as trained, when they make the assumption that you are questioning.

Maybe citizens need to be better trained. When being arrested, even if you think it's bullshit, keep your hands in plain sight, and go without escalation, even if the offense is something minor. You are risking your life if you escalate. There is time later to sort things out.

Geez, even in Drivers' Ed when I was 17, I was told if I was pulled over for a traffic offense, keep my hands in sight and follow instructions. And when securing credentials from the glove compartment, move slowly.

[Winterborn]

I don't know, CID. Every officer I know as said that when the car door opens, and his hands disappear from sight, all bets are off. They are going to assume that, within a micro-second, the guy is going to have a gun. That's their training.

I know a lot of officers in town who were deeply troubled by the George Floyd case, but say they would have reacted the same way in the Blake matter.

Yup, and that's the exact problem: the presumption everyone is an immediate, mortal threat during a confrontation. It's an asymmetric issue where a person's freedom to life has little chance against police training. That's the point of these protests.

Most of us have dealt with people acting angry, unresponsively, or erratically. It doesn't typically end in grave violence, and there's no reason it should with police. Patience, time, and simply letting things go is a friend during heightened emotions.

I take it you have never delt with a meth addict before? They are not exactly reasonable.

[∞∞∞]

Yup, and that's the exact problem: the presumption everyone is an immediate, mortal threat during a confrontation. It's an asymmetric issue where a person's freedom to life has little chance against police training. That's the point of these protests.

Most of us have dealt with people acting angry, unresponsively, or erratically. It doesn't typically end in grave violence, and there's no reason it should with police. Patience, time, and simply letting things go is a friend during heightened emotions.

And that's why you're an engineer and not in charge of policing.

Exactly. I respect my profession 'cause it requires years of academia and training, continuing education, has multiple layers of oversight, and is heavily regulated; it's needed 'cause we have the ability to kill people. There's a reason people are protesting the police and not engineers.

[Baldy]

Yup, and that's the exact problem: the presumption everyone is an immediate, mortal threat during a confrontation. It's an asymmetric issue where a person's freedom to life has little chance against police training. That's the point of these protests.

Most of us have dealt with people acting angry, unresponsively, or erratically. It doesn't typically end in grave violence, and there's no reason it should with police. Patience, time, and simply letting things go is a friend during heightened emotions.

And that's why you're an engineer and not in charge of policing.

With a thought process like that, I kinda hope I'm never in or around anything Trip had a hand in building.

[89Hen]

And that's why you're an engineer and not in charge of policing.

Exactly. I respect my profession 'cause it requires years of academia and training, layers of oversight, and is heavily regulated 'cause we also have the ability to kill people. There's a reason people are protesting the police and not engineers.

America's engineers... true heroes.

[Winterborn]

And that's why you're an engineer and not in charge of policing.

Exactly. I respect my profession 'cause it requires years of academia and training, layers of oversight, and is heavily regulated 'cause we also have the ability to kill people. There's a reason people are protesting the police and not engineers.

And yet this still happens.

[89Hen]

[Winterborn]

Exactly. I respect my profession 'cause it requires years of academia and training, layers of oversight, and is heavily regulated 'cause we also have the ability to kill people. There's a reason people are protesting the police and not engineers.

America's engineers... true heroes.

Well some of us are.

[∞∞∞]

Exactly. I respect my profession 'cause it requires years of academia and training, layers of oversight, and is heavily regulated 'cause we also have the ability to kill people. There's a reason people are protesting the police and not engineers.

America's engineers... true heroes.

Like I said, there's a reason people are protesting the police and the majority of Americans want reforms. If you want a free society, you can't be shocked when people are angry their freedoms are being threatened. As they stand, the police are a threat to freedom.