Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[Doc]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Was a sexual assault imminent at the time Jacob Blake was shot seven times in the back? 

 

No but a physical assault very well might have been considering he did it right before getting shot.  And 7 shots wasn't enough to kill him.

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

Should they have fired 7 bullets into his back is the question. 

 

My understanding of how these situations are supposed to be handled is that you shoot to kill when there are no other options.

 

A couple of smacks with a baton would have ended it. Then again, he is black.

 

If this were the only time a situation like this had played out, I would want to know more. When it's a regular occurrence, there is something systemically wrong.

Before cellphone videos, I used to think like you. Cellphone videos have confirmed what we have been hearing from black people about employees of the government. They often lie about how these situations play out.

How many times do you have to watch a video of a black person being killed by a cop before you see there is a real issue?

 

That you believe the cop was in fear for his life when he shot someone in the BACK 7 TIMES is truly astounding.

 

Any person at any time who makes that move in that situation runs about a 95+% chance of experiencing the same outcome.

 

The fact that you guys are holding up a violent, knife wielding, alleged rapist who resisted arrest, walked through a taser, and reached into his car in the exact same way one would reach for a gun, as your poster child for victims of police brutality, speaks volumes about the legitimacy of your position.

[SectionC3]

46 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No but a physical assault very well might have been considering he did it right before getting shot.  And 7 shots wasn't enough to kill him.

 

So why mention sexual assault?  How is that relevant?  Unless, of course, you’re trying to mislead and confuse.  

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

So why mention sexual assault?  How is that relevant?  Unless, of course, you’re trying to mislead and confuse.  

 

"Why mention the context of the situation? How is context relevant?" 

 

Proving again that he's not a very bright person, let alone attorney. 

[SectionC3]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

"Why mention the context of the situation? How is context relevant?" 

 

Proving again that he's not a very bright person, let alone attorney. 

 

Nice job changing the quote.  I ask again, how is the sexual assault relevant to that incident?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Nice job changing the quote.  I ask again, how is the sexual assault relevant to that incident?

 

You're asking why CONTEXT matters.  

 

Stop it. You've embarrassed yourself enough for a week and proved beyond all doubt you have about two IQ points in that noggin' of yours. 

[Sig1Hunter]

17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

So why mention sexual assault?  How is that relevant?  Unless, of course, you’re trying to mislead and confuse.  

Propensity to commit violence is a factor (one of many) in determining when use of force is justified. 

 

He is a violent felon.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Sig1Hunter said:

Propensity to commit violence is a factor (one of many) in determining when use of force is justified. 

 

He is a violent felon.

 

And, I'd imagine that influences the cops' mentality as they're arriving on scene -- would it not? 

 

But nah. Context doesn't matter at all... that is it doesn't matter if your goal is to be dishonest. 

[Sig1Hunter]

24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And, I'd imagine that influences the cops' mentality as they're arriving on scene -- would it not? 

 

But nah. Context doesn't matter at all... that is it doesn't matter if your goal is to be dishonest. 

Are you asking if there’s a difference when cops respond when they know someone has a warrant/criminal history for violent felonies and is armed with a knife versus grandma jones who has no demonstrated propensity for violence who happens to be holding a kitchen knife as she is slicing tomatoes? 

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#JOURNALISM:

 

 

 

“Without evidence” is just journospeak for “against the narrative.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember when NPR used to at least attempt to appear reasonable and objective?

 

Ok....me neither.

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Are you asking if there’s a difference when cops respond when they know someone has a warrant/criminal history for violent felonies and is armed with a knife versus grandma jones who has no demonstrated propensity for violence who happens to be holding a kitchen knife as she is slicing tomatoes? 

 

 Purely for SectionC3's enlightenment -- but I figured you could speak to it better than I ever could. 

[SectionC3]

48 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Propensity to commit violence is a factor (one of many) in determining when use of force is justified. 

 

He is a violent felon.

indeed it is.  Now, did the officer who shot Blake know of that history when the trigger was pulled?

[Deranged Rhino]

Proving he's not only dishonest, not only a shite poster, but also VERY dumb... 

[Reality Check]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

indeed it is.  Now, did the officer who shot Blake know of that history when the trigger was pulled?

 

[Westside]

What's amazing is the left's ability to lie when the evidence is right there!!

The media is to blame for this. They've been lieing so much, they don't know how to tell the truth.

 

10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

indeed it is.  Now, did the officer who shot Blake know of that history when the trigger was pulled?

Did the officer know if there was a weapon in the car when he reached in?

[SectionC3]

30 minutes ago, westside2 said:

What's amazing is the left's ability to lie when the evidence is right there!!

The media is to blame for this. They've been lieing so much, they don't know how to tell the truth.

 

Did the officer know if there was a weapon in the car when he reached in?

 

Not the issue yet.  Let’s take it slow.  Did the officer know of the sexual assault at the time the officer shot Blake?  One question at a time. 

[Sig1Hunter]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Not the issue yet.  Let’s take it slow.  Did the officer know of the sexual assault at the time the officer shot Blake?  One question at a time. 

The answer is yes. It was relayed to them via the radio prior to their arrival, and the link to that was provided in one of the many threads going on on the topic.

[Teddy KGB]

Section and Kemp are so pro rape right now ??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️

[SectionC3]

14 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The answer is yes. It was relayed to them via the radio prior to their arrival, and the link to that was provided in one of the many threads going on on the topic.

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

[bdutton]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

 

Which bullet killed him?  The 1st or the 7th?

[Sig1Hunter]

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

[SoCal Deek]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

I assume you think one shot would’ve been sufficient? Or two? Please pick the acceptable number of shots so we can all write it down.

[GG]

37 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

He did?  That is so unlike the chief gaslighter woods delighted that there are dead bodies in the streets.  But hey, as long as it's not in erie county it doesn't exist.   

[SectionC3]

40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I assume you think one shot would’ve been sufficient? Or two? Please pick the acceptable number of shots so we can all write it down.

 

I don’t assume anything.  I just want to know whether the fact of a prior sexual assault justifies shooting someone seven times in the back.  There seems to be a real struggle to answer that question on the part of the people who read this thread. 

52 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

Fake news.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

51 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don’t assume anything.  I just want to know whether the fact of a prior sexual assault justifies shooting someone seven times in the back.  There seems to be a real struggle to answer that question on the part of the people who read this thread. 

Fake news.  

 

...how do you have so much time to post with your extensive client list?.....hell the PPP thought was we have the likes of F Lee Bailey before us.....sounds more like Barnum & BAILEY, 3rd chair so noted.......

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

Or, is it possible, in fact,  probable ...lTHAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO STEPS IN THE STAIRCASE OF JUSTICE????!  
 

(emphasis added for theatrical effect) 
 

It would make things a lot easier. 

[Sig1Hunter]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Or, is it possible, in fact,  probable ...lTHAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO STEPS IN THE STAIRCASE OF JUSTICE????!  
 

(emphasis added for theatrical effect) 
 

It would make things a lot easier. 

Lol...i believe that over the course of history, there have been several countries that have had a two step model in their justice system. Ironic that a lot of those countries are/were communist/socialist..

[Bakin]

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don’t assume anything.  I just want to know whether the fact of a prior sexual assault justifies shooting someone seven times in the back.  There seems to be a real struggle to answer that question on the part of the people who read this thread. 

Fake news.  

Resisting arrest

running to your car to get a weapon 

those are the big ones that justify it. 
The fact that he’s a sexual assaulter/rapist is just a bonus. 

[Penfield45]

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#JOURNALISM:

 

 

 

“Without evidence” is just journospeak for “against the narrative.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you can scream "self defense" all you want. nothing is going to change the fact he is going to rot in jail and spend the majority of his adulthood there. 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Penfield45

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

 

you can scream "self defense" all you want. nothing is going to change the fact he is going to rot in jail and spend the majority of his adulthood there. 

 

 

Welcome back, Sunshine.

[Penfield45]

On 8/31/2020 at 9:43 AM, Sig1Hunter said:

 

The cops saw it, and shouted for him to drop it. You can hear it on the video.

 

ah I see. so even if this is true...in America, you are allowed to shoot someone multiple times in the back and kill them.... because they are holding a knife? 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Penfield45 said:

you can scream "self defense" all you want. nothing is going to change the fact he is going to rot in jail and spend the majority of his adulthood there.

 

Doubtful at best.

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

 

ah I see. so even if this is true...in America, you are allowed to shoot someone multiple times in the back and kill them.... because they are holding a knife? 

 

 

 

 

You arent going to acknowledge my sincere thought to welcome you back? Sheesh...

 

and to answer your question: yes. You are justified in shooting a physically resistant subject that is armed with a knife and refuses to drop it,  when you can articulate a threat from that knife wielding felon (the lack of distance between the officer and the knife wielding felon). You shoot until the threat no longer exists. You dont shoot with express purpose to kill. If they were shooting to kill, he would have likely been popped in the melon.

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Penfield45 said:

ah I see. so even if this is true...in America, you are allowed to shoot someone multiple times in the back and kill them.... because they are holding a knife?

 

He died?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

You arent going to acknowledge my sincere thought to welcome you back? Sheesh...

 

and to answer your question: yes. You are justified in shooting a physically resistant subject that is armed with a knife and refuses to drop it,  when you can articulate a threat from that knife wielding felon (the lack of distance between the officer and the knife wielding felon). You shoot until the threat no longer exists. You dont shoot with express purpose to kill. If they were shooting to kill, he would have likely been popped in the melon.

Actually, I hadn’t thought about that...the melon popping.  Excellent point . 

[Penfield45]

12 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

You arent going to acknowledge my sincere thought to welcome you back? Sheesh...

 

and to answer your question: yes. You are justified in shooting a physically resistant subject that is armed with a knife and refuses to drop it,  when you can articulate a threat from that knife wielding felon (the lack of distance between the officer and the knife wielding felon). You shoot until the threat no longer exists. You dont shoot with express purpose to kill. If they were shooting to kill, he would have likely been popped in the melon.

 

"physically resistant subject" 

 

there were about 10 cops there and 1 guy holding a "knife". why can't you admit dogs are trained better than police in america. there was no reason to pull out a weapon and fire it. 

[Wacka]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He died?

Well, he can't sexually assault someone anymore, so for Penfield45, I guess that is the same as dying.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

"physically resistant subject" 

 

there were about 10 cops there and 1 guy holding a "knife". why can't you admit dogs are trained better than police in america. there was no reason to pull out a weapon and fire it. 

 

After he physically assaulted them and ignored commands to stop going to his car where he could retrieve who knows what, yes there was.

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

 

"physically resistant subject" 

 

there were about 10 cops there and 1 guy holding a "knife". why can't you admit dogs are trained better than police in america. there was no reason to pull out a weapon and fire it. 

No. Cuz i wouldn’t send my dog to apprehend him if he had a knife either. The dog would certainly want a piece of him, but you don’t deploy K9s on known armed suspects. That’s because the human cops know the danger. The doggie doesn’t. Human training > doggie training. See?