IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:03 am
Grandma wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:35 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:04 am
Ya the handcuffed to the bed outrage is over the top. He has/had felony warrants, right?
The cop who shot him 7 times in the back should also be in handcuffs though.
I'm not saying if I feel Blake should be in handcuffs or not - nor am I saying if I feel the cop should be in handcuffs - or not.
Why do YOU feel the cop should be in handcuffs?
Because he followed a guy to his car and then shot him 7 times in that back?
I am not okay with policing in that fashion anymore. It can't be "i was scared he was going to grab a knife and somehow cause harm to me and my partner who both have guns". If 2 guys with guns cant keep themselves from being killed by 1 guy with a knife without shooting him in the back 7 times then those 2 guys shouldnt be police.
Was Blake wrong for resisting arrest? Absolutely.
Was Blake wrong for having or going to get a knife and maybe use it on police? Absolutely.
Should the police have shot him 7 times in the back at that point in the altercation? No.
Should the police have taken 5 steps back from him out of arms reach with a knife and waited to see what he was actually going to do? Yes.
Police need to stop assuming what people are going to do. They have shown that they aren't great mind readers too often. There is risk associated with their job. I don't want them to let themselves get killed....but i also dont think they can kill or shoot people whenever they feel slightly threatened and use "feared for life" as an excuse to be judge/jury/executioner.
Not disagreeing with you.
Just providing "rebuttal" that either I feel/believe or I think others would/might feel/believe.
Big difference between simply saying - "he followed a guy to his car and then shot him 7 times in that back" and saying, "the guy had a history and the police knew it, they attempted to subdue him - unsuccessfully, they ordered him to stop/freeze and he ignored them, he may have had a knife in his hand, he may have threatened to harm his children who were in the car (I haven't heard this theory but it is a possible one), he may have been reaching for a gun (I haven't heard this theory either - but again, it's a possible one) and the cop felt the best course of action was to incapacitate the man, and that was what he felt was his best option at the time".
I'm not ok with it either but we are playing "what if". None of us know what may or may not have occurred if he had a gun in the car - and used it. OR if he didn't have a gun in the car and what would have happened if the cop did NOT shoot him. We know facts but assumptions are prevalent.
I feel Blake was wrong for resisting arrest.
I feel Blake WOULD have been wrong IF he had a knife and didn't drop it.
I feel the police should not have shot him 7 times in the back but I also feel he would not have been shot in the back if he didn't "resist" the police.
I do NOT feel the police should have taken 5 steps back from him out of arms reach with a knife and waited to see what he was actually going to do. He had already disobeyed them multiple times in multiple manners.
I feel there was a fine line for the cops in this situation. Possibly (probably?) a lose lose situation for them.
I disagree that Police need to stop assuming what people are going to do.
Forgetting Jacob Blake, I feel the police need to "assume" anything and everything in a situation.
If not assume, "assess" what may or may not happen.
I agree 100% that they have shown they are not great mind readers but it comes as part of the job. They have to at least try to read minds while they make their decisions on how to act - or not act.
I will never even pretend to know what I would do in a POSSIBLE live or die / react or don't react police situation - if I was a cop.
What I do know is that if I was a cop I would realize I am responsible for protecting citizens and the laws that have been written. Normally I think of myself as someone who errors on the side of caution. While I might think that's a good way for cops to adhere to, maybe it's not and how do they determine what is being cautious and what is not?
What I think is difficult for cops to assess in the moment is - are my actions only going to affect this situation or will they also affect the aftermath?
Right or wrong, I believe SOME cops are letting "bad guys" go simply because they themselves don't want to face the aftermath and they also don't want to be the one who instigates/initiates how others will respond.
Right or wrong, I also believe more people hate Chauvin because of the aftermath than they do because he "killed" Floyd.