skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Once, in the leg. Doubtful it needed more than that. Unless he was intending on killing him.
Once, in the leg. Doubtful it needed more than that. Unless he was intending on killing him.I'm not squirming whatsoever, you say 7 is too many how many times should that officer in that incident have shot the suspect if he feared his life was in danger... You tell me because 7 is too many so what's acceptable
Obviously the expert in situations like this please afford me your expertise
Once, in the leg. Doubtful it needed more than that. Unless he was intending on killing him.
I'm not squirming whatsoever, you say 7 is too many how many times should that officer in that incident have shot the suspect if he feared his life wa sin danger... You tell me because 7 is too many so what's acceptable
Yes you are. You are refusing to say what everyone knows is true, that 7 times is too much. He was shot in the spine, instantly paralysed & incapacitated, but they kept shooting, even when the guy was completely immobilised. There is no way anyones' life was in danger after that. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But because you're one of these weird people that seems to love all this Rambo-type stuff, you're coming out with increasingly strange justifications, and then to top it all off it seems to be the fault of the "mainstream media".
You are making things up. If you've just shot someone in the spine, you do not fear your life is in danger unless you're clearly not fit to be doing the job. Nobody has said that the officer was "in fear of his life", you have said it.
I'll try one more time- do you think that 7 shots in the back was justified?
You've probably never been in any situation that requires a split second decision to decide what is the correct thing to do... Youre also implying that the officer will have known upon shooting his victim was paralysed from a single bullet, in the case of firing several bullets in several seconds you have no time at all to come to the conclusions you are trying to say he should have.
I've worked in Iraq with the military, had to make a split second decision whether to shoot a person in a crowded market place whilst on top cover, on several occasions had to engage in situations where it is literally life or death, I worked in security back in Iraq after leaving the military, you are talking as though you have a clue what you would feel like in a situation like this... When you do not... Just stop
Your own words: " Completely incomparible though when you Compare cultures "
Your experiences in Iraq have no relevance here at all.
But you're analysing one incident in as much detail as possible, seemingly to justify the actions of the police, when this is happening on a regular basis.I'm not squirming whatsoever, you say 7 is too many how many times should that officer in that incident have shot the suspect if he feared his life was in danger... You tell me because 7 is too many so what's acceptable
But you're analysing one incident in as much detail as possible, seemingly to justify the actions of the police, when this is happening on a regular basis.
How many times should Tamir Rice have been shot? Why no bullets for Kyle Rittenhouse, Patrick Crusius or Dylann Roof?
Actually, it does, deciding whether to shoot somebody within the law within a split second is exactly comparable
So actually you do agree with NW's point that in the UK we manage to do it in general without pumping people full of lead. You're beginning to contradict yourself now I'm afraid.
No contradiction here I'm afraid, you're assuming 1 incident was the only incident, but I was illustrating how quick mentally you have to be to make a decision... Something you have no idea about
Like in America, not every suspect ends up dead
So actually you do agree with NW's point that in the UK we manage to do it in general without pumping people full of lead. You're beginning to contradict yourself now I'm afraid.
If his life was in danger... 7 shots is not too many... If his life wasn't in danger 7 shots is too many.And even now, you steadfastly refuse to say whether you feel that- knowing what you do about this incident- 7 shots to the back was too much.
Is my last post enough to end this rather long debate this morning/afternoon, are we in agreement Steel
I don't think we'll ever really agree on some things but thats ok, life would be boring etc etc, all good by me
I think you’ve been watching too many films thinking that they’re documentaries.That simple right? Come on now that's almost too perfect a situation to imagine... It's not a movie
You can be shot in the leg and still be a lethal threat, often adrenaline can take over and you won't even feel the gunshot to the leg initially
I think you’ve been watching too many films thinking that they’re documentaries.
One in the leg and if he keeps coming at you or running away shoot again.
The footage shows that the police followed him around the front of his car. He then goes to open his door and for a moment is almost facing the officers.
I would have thought that if there was any shooting to be done it would have been at this point. This is the point at which I think the police were in danger, when Blake is turning towards them.
The officer then runs around the back of him and shoots him. Its just as if he wanted to shoot him in the back. Its clearly shoot to kill.
The only circumstances I would have expected the police to open up like that would have been if the bloke had a bomb strapped to him and had been tracked as on his way to commit mass murder.
Once, in the leg. Doubtful it needed more than that. Unless he was intending on killing him.
Yes you are. You are refusing to say what everyone knows is true, that 7 times is too much. He was shot in the spine, instantly paralysed & incapacitated, but they kept shooting, even when the guy was completely immobilised. There is no way anyones life was in danger after that. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But because you're one of these weird people that seems to love all this Rambo-type stuff, you're coming out with increasingly strange justifications, and then to top it all off it seems to be the fault of the "mainstream media".
You are making things up. If you've just shot someone in the spine, you do not fear your life is in danger unless you're clearly not fit to be doing the job. Nobody has said that the officer was "in fear of his life", you have said it.
I'll try one more time- do you think that 7 shots in the back was justified?
This isn't accurate
The officer follows him around the car, tries to pull his shirt back as he opens the door and shoots as he leans in the vehicle
TBH, I think adm's post was really just a summary of this. Either way, the point remains that, on the face of things. of all the recent incidents of this kind this is the least defensible. The US has a big race issue - it seems like 50 years behind Northern European countries.
TBH, I think adm's post was really just a summary of this. Either way, the point remains that, on the face of things. of all the recent incidents of this kind this is the least defensible. The US has a big race issue - it seems like 50 years behind Northern European countries.
You don't believe the media have any influence over what people think about trump?
He used to be celebrated about many things before he took office, by the very people who now spew the hate... The media are dangerous
No one celebrates Trump. He’s been a laughing stock his entire “career”. He’s a meme filled TV businessman like Alan Sugar here, not an actual businessman.
Alan sugar though clearly losing his marbles, has had a great career... He sold his business amstrad to sky a few years back for 125 million, plus made loads from property in landan... Pretty successful really isn't it
He did well with Amstrad and since then has been generic rich guy with a cockerney manner. Same as Trump did well by being born, then was generic 80s rich guy. Their brand was always bigger than their business nous, you wouldn’t find them advising Fortune 500 companies.
I think it does look as if he’s going for a weapon but after one shot I think you’ve done what you need. 7 ffs
I stand to be corrected . I wonder why he pulled his shirt half heartedly ? In some vain hope the bloke would turn around and then he'd get blasted from the front.This isn't accurate
The officer follows him around the car, tries to pull his shirt back as he opens the door and shoots as he leans in the vehicle
I did notice a pause in the firing after three or four shots. I suppose when you've shot someone that many times you may as well do it again.It is difficult to say for sure, but it does look like he reaches down into the drivers door for something. The problem is, and I've said this before, a lot of people do not understand the situation in America with guns. The police get shot at all the time and so I have no doubt in my mind here they were shooting to kill to extinguish any threat. They intended to take the threat down. No one can say he wasn't a threat either, there is clearly an argument to suggest he was at that point.
Had he dropped to the floor after one shot, I would imagine they wouldn't have kept shooting. As he was still seemingly on his feet and (perhaps) reaching for something, they kept on firing.
At the moment, no one knows what happened before hand, and no one knows the context of why he went to the vehicle, or what might have been in there. People just shout racist. If it was a white guy this wouldn't be making the news. There is a clear agenda getting in the way of facts and it is setting race relations back ten fold.
White knuckle?I did notice a pause in the firing after three or four shots. I suppose when you've shot someone that many times you may as well do it again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?