Nothing to do with what I said. I said the perp escalated the situation himself. Which he did.
He forced those cops to empty the weapon into him. They did not want to, but he forced them to.
Nothing to do with what I said. I said the perp escalated the situation himself. Which he did.
He forced those cops to empty the weapon into him. They did not want to, but he forced them to.
Inversion fallacy.The courts will figure it out. Since you like making snap judgments, what is your judgement of the raw video?
GRAPHIC NSFW
Wrong.Blake does bear responsibility for his actions but so does the officer who shot him with the last 3-4 rounds in his back as Blake lay slumped across the seat. The video has 3 spaced rounds fired then 4 in quick succession. Blake's legs can be under the car door. He was down after the first three rounds.
Inversion fallacy.
Watching the video I see a Jacob ignoring the police, leaving the scene of violence, and reaching into his car for something. He was shot when reaching into his car. That to me indicates he was reaching for a weapon. If I were on that jury, I don't see an unjustified shooting.
What weapon?
Unknown. It is not visible on the video. Apparently the officers though it dangerous enough to shoot the guy.
But if we look at the genesis of the situation it was Blake and Blake alone who caused things to escalate. If he had only followed commands none of the other things happen.
By the numbers.....very simple. Start counting and stop at two. If three doesnt happen,.....you never get to four.
No
The police are supposed to be held to a higher standard, idiot, not given the benefit of the doubt.
What a. Fucking idiot
Unknown. It is not visible on the video. Apparently the officers though it dangerous enough to shoot the guy.
A court will decide, but if you watched the video then I'm sure you will see that the shooting officer appeared to be quick on the trigger and overly zealous in pumping rounds into a slumped body.
It was not about arresting him. You do not need to shoot 11 times from close range to secure an arrest. It was a murder that may have failed.
The State is investigating and, if necessary, the officer will be charged and tried. IMO, he violated the law twice; unnecessary use of lethal force and murder for shooting a helpless victim 3-4 times in the back.
In the back? 7 times?
Are you drunk? Or do you have some kind of disability? Just asking.....
Yes. Jacob was reaching into his car for something. Like a weapon quite possibly. He had already ignored multiple commands to stop. The officers had already drawn their guns long before Jacob reached the car. If an officer shoots, they will keep shooting. Realize this, don't ignore the cops, and don't reach into your car like that.
Even Cowboys thought Back Shooters where COWARDS![]()
She's an old bitter and twisted black woman who thinks all whites are racist.
That is what I said."quite possibly"?
My view is not the officer's view. The video is not the officer's view. Jacob was reaching into the car after ignoring officer commands to stop. They had already drawn their weapons. Jacob did not need to get shot. He chose his path.That is NOT an excuse to shoot a man in the back 7 times.
Anyone good training in firearms realizes the very real possibility that what Jacob was getting was a weapon, particularly after ignoring multiple commands to stop, and being involved in a domestic dispute (violence). Also anyone with good training in firearms against human targets does not shoot just one shot. You keep shooting. You don't take any chances. This isn't a hunting trip.Anyone with any training in firearms use would know this.
Quite right. Jacob had the choice to follow the commands of the officers. He knew the officers had their guns already drawn. They don't just brandish their weapons that carelessly. Again, any trained shooter does not brandish carelessly. Everyone knows what a gun can do. Everyone knows how easy an accident can happen.Yep, they had guns drawn before he got to his car. They already had the advantage, therefore he should have made sound judgement..
In this incident, he didn't.
"quite possibly"? That is NOT an excuse to shoot a man in the back 7 times. Anyone with any training in firearms use would know this.
Yep, they had guns drawn before he got to his car. They already had the advantage, therefore he should have made sound judgement..
In this incident, he didn't.