Photo

Sports World Reaction To Jacob Blake Shooting


  • Please log in to reply
540 replies to this topic

#81 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,998 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:00 PM

Chris , I agree with everything you said with one exception. IF the police instructed him to NOT try to get in the car what are they supposed to do when he reaches into the car? How do you deescalate things at that point?


You surround the car and talk to him like you would in a hostage situation. 

If he's in the car with his knife, the only risk is to himself right? 

 

If his knife was a gun... same thing until it's pointed at a Cop...  (but you could have pulled the cops back to a safe distance there too). 



#82 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,354 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:02 PM


You surround the car and talk to him like you would in a hostage situation. 

If he's in the car with his knife, the only risk is to himself right? 

 

If his knife was a gun... same thing until it's pointed at a Cop...  (but you could have pulled the cops back to a safe distance there too). 

 

The kids were in the car.  If they thought he had a weapon and it looked like he was going to use it on the kids, that is also a justifiable use of force, IMO.  I have not heard anyone suggest that this might have been the rationale for the shoot.


  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#83 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,928 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:03 PM

Stoner and Mackus have said it well for me.

I'd also be curious to know which times you have sided with the African American victims in these high profile shootings.

 

I TRY and wait until the case is investigated before I decide what I think. Case in point. The George Floyd case. My initial thought was that was 100% bad on the police. But that was based on the first short video of the cop kneeling on his neck (now I don't ever think that is ok but that is a different thing that what I first thought was straight murder).



#84 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,422 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:08 PM

I TRY and wait until the case is investigated before I decide what I think. Case in point. The George Floyd case. My initial thought was that was 100% bad on the police. But that was based on the first short video of the cop kneeling on his neck (now I don't ever think that is ok but that is a different thing that what I first thought was straight murder).


So perhaps George Floyd and that's it out of all the available examples?

#85 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,998 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:08 PM

The kids were in the car.  If they thought he had a weapon and it looked like he was going to use it on the kids, that is also a justifiable use of force, IMO.  I have not heard anyone suggest that this might have been the rationale for the shoot.


Okay, fair enough and bad on me for not knowing the kids were in the car. Know they had witnessed. Didn't realize from where. 
Still... the key there is what you said... you'd need to see that it looked he was going to use the weapon on the kids to justify.



#86 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,928 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:08 PM

I guess the difference is just a fundamental view on how we think police should have to handle a situation where they have given instructions to someone to not reach to where the police can't see what the person is doing.

 

a. Do they have to wait until the person pulls back with a gun and turns around before they act?

 

or

 

b. If a person has been repeatedly warned not to do something like reach into your car can they act first?



#87 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,998 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:09 PM

So perhaps George Floyd and that's it out of all the available examples?

 

He used Floyd as an example.  He doesn't need to go case-by-case to state what he thinks should have happened in each. 

 


  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this

#88 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,422 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:10 PM

I guess the difference is just a fundamental view on how we think police should have to handle a situation where they have given instructions to someone to not reach to where the police can't see what the person is doing.

a. Do they have to wait until the person pulls back with a gun and turns around before they act?

or

b. If a person has been repeatedly warned not to do something like reach into your car can they act first?


The very clear reality in our country is

a. Is it a black person

b. Is it not a black person
  • The Epic and CantonJester like this

#89 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,998 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:11 PM

I guess the difference is just a fundamental view on how we think police should have to handle a situation where they have given instructions to someone to not reach to where the police can't see what the person is doing.

 

a. Do they have to wait until the person pulls back with a gun and turns around before they act?

 

or

 

b. If a person has been repeatedly warned not to do something like reach into your car can they act first?


A, absolutely A.   Their lives have to be shown to be in direct risk.  Brandishing a weapon (in this case a knife)... and lunging back at the officers. 

Reaching for a knife if that is what he was doing, with his back facing the officers... doesn't put the officers directly at risk. 

I'll go with the point that the kids being in the car changes the equation some, but you'd need to show the kids were immediately at risk too imo.


  • The Epic and CantonJester like this

#90 russsnyder

russsnyder

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,452 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:11 PM


This is my base reaction, too, but I don't think it helps anything. Try to engage. Takes a lot of work to change minds but if you can start at least getting people to listen a bit things can get moving in the right direction. Goes both ways, too. Gotta be willing to hear them out, as frustrating as it can be to listen to people who aren't aware of how they sound and what their words really mean.


I think most people are blowing smoke. They are frustrated that they can't watch a game. I remember the reaction in 1972 from some of my friends' dad's to the MLB strike. A lot of them said that they would never watch baseball again. Ironically, many of them belonged to a union. Believe me, they watched a lot of baseball after that strike was over. If players or their want to boycott for a cause that's their right.
<p>"F IT!, Let's hit." Ted Williams

#91 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,422 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:11 PM

He used Floyd as an example. He doesn't need to go case-by-case to state what he thinks should have happened in each.

Well it's very telling if he's almost never on the side of the African American victim in cases where deadly action by the police is questionable at best.

#92 The Epic

The Epic

    ^^ That's my name. Don't wear it out.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,148 posts
  • LocationGlyndon, MD

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:13 PM

I do think that this is another situation that justifies maybe...just maybe...that the police shouldn't be called in situations like this. 



#93 SBTarheel

SBTarheel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,851 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:13 PM

Again, if your first instinct when an unarmed black man is shot in the back 7 times is "Yeah but", then your most likely a person I have no interest in having in my life. 


  • CantonJester likes this
@beginthebegin71

#94 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,928 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:13 PM

Well it's very telling if he's almost never on the side of the African American victim in cases where the police action is questionable at best.

Eff off. I said no such thing. Go back and read all of post 83!



#95 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,354 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:14 PM

I guess the difference is just a fundamental view on how we think police should have to handle a situation where they have given instructions to someone to not reach to where the police can't see what the person is doing.

 

a. Do they have to wait until the person pulls back with a gun and turns around before they act?

 

or

 

b. If a person has been repeatedly warned not to do something like reach into your car can they act first?

 

 

https://www.american...eadly-force-in/

 

https://www.law.corn.../text/10/1047.7

 

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.



#96 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,422 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:18 PM

Eff off. I said no such thing. Go back and read all of post 83!


I asked a simple question. My response that you have such a problem with is the logical one based on your answer. That's on you. I gave you a chance to show that you may not be what you're appearing to be based on your unconscionable defense of an unjustifiable act.

#97 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,928 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:18 PM

https://www.american...eadly-force-in/

 

https://www.american...eadly-force-in/

That's a good article and I will just pull out this one paragraph since it sums up what I have been trying to say and clearly not very well.

 

Each case brings its own facts and other circumstances for law enforcement officials, judges and juries to consider. 



#98 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,928 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:20 PM

I asked a simple question. My response that you have such a problem with is the logical one based on your answer. That's on you. I gave you a chance to show that you may not be what you're appearing to be based on your unconscionable defense of an unjustifiable act.

Sheesh for the last time. I made one current relevant example and gave you my thoughts. If you want to judge me on that then so be it.



#99 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,354 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:22 PM

Unless they're gonna try to say he was threatening the kids, there is no way any of the above apply.  You can't be an imminent threat to a police officer with your back turned to him.  Unless being farted on counts as serious bodily harm.



#100 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,354 posts

Posted 27 August 2020 - 09:23 PM

That's a good article and I will just pull out this one paragraph since it sums up what I have been trying to say and clearly not very well.

 

Each case brings its own facts and other circumstances for law enforcement officials, judges and juries to consider. 

 

Check out the other link with the legal definition that I added in via edit.  I also quoted the applicable text.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=