Kenosha police wereresponding to a call about Jacob Blake. He was not a bystander, not a witness, he was not breaking up a fight. This was all false...maybe if people had waited for the real information to get out before jumping to chaos and violence and worst case scenario conclusions things would go better? Hmm?

Hey wise man maybe it is about shooting a guy 7 times in the back who was not armed and was a foot from his 3 kids and that made it even more unlikely that he posed a danger necessitating 7 shots not to mention 3 cops with guns vs a guy just tasered twice and not at that time armed.

maybe that, genius?

Jesus Christ what a craven cynical post.

Cool he doesn’t talk about the 17 year old murderer either. What a complete joke.

Oh ok, so that one element of one of my posts was false. I was wrong about that.

What about the part where they still paralyzed him with 7 shots in the back? Protests are absolutely still justified regardless.

I was being facetious to “ lies “

Just because someone is a Trump supporter/Blue lives matter slogan Sayer does not mean said person is not entitled to act in self-defense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/iifu8e/an_analysis_of_the_criminal_complaint_against/

Guitarguy outs himself as a stalker in r/conservative.

And defends a murderer who illegally crossed the border to commit an act of terror.

Just because you say it does not make it true.

Someone who's a volunteer life guard, volunteers to clean grafitti and to protect a local business from being looted/destroyed vs a man with sexual abuse allegations and a whole host of other violent interactions with police. Guess who the left defends? Same story always.

https://archive.is/YcYRU

Someone who travels across state lines illegally to kill two people, who is now charged with first degree murder, vs hero protesters who put their life on the line to stop a terrorist.

This one isn't even difficult for me.

Posted by dino27 on 8/28/2020 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Hey wise man maybe it is about shooting a guy 7 times in the back who was not armed and was a foot from his 3 kids and that made it even more unlikely that he posed a danger necessitating 7 shots not to mention 3 cops with guns vs a guy just tasered twice and not at that time armed.

maybe that, genius?

Do you even recognize that you're making his point for him?

I'm not fully up to date, so let's just assume everything both of you said is true. Police are in the process of trying to apprehend an individual. Individual isn't cooperating, is trying to get into his car. The police report says he claimed to have a weapon in the vehicle. They tase him twice and he's still up and trying to get into the vehicle, where he may have a weapon. If the taser isn't working, what's the next step?

Look, if they really thought he had a knife, they don't have to shoot him. Just back up a few steps and if he does show up with a knife you have plenty of time to react AFTER you see it. But the argument that non-lethal force failed to contain the problem is an argument FOR using lethal force, not against it.

No sir. You said it right in the 2nd paragraph. They had him by his shirt. They did not have justification for lethal force under the circumstances.

the shooter acted like a scared jack rabbit.

very likely extreme incompetence being there were 3 cops there and 3 kids.
And ingrained racial bias.
I’m not saying overt racism but an overreaction out of racial ingrained fear.

the kind trump spreads and stokes.

o was merely laying out possibilities and I still see it as u justified lethal force.

I agree that it was unjustified use of lethal force. But I do think that the fact that the guy apparently withstood two taser discharges without going down is more an argument for lethal force, not against it. I think we pretty much agree on this. The shooter seems to clearly have had an unnecessary level of fear, likely driven by racial bias. Hopefully he is removed from any situations where he has to make the same kind of decisions again in the future.