Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Countryfox

Also in the news

By Countryfox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Why did he not comply? I don't know the history behind the story, but why was he walking off and going into his car?

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12503758/black-lives-matter-protester-shot-head-kenosha/

 

The USA is mental.

Because he had no obligation to comply even if he did in fact have a criminal record and the last time I checked such lack of compliance without presenting a capital threat (real, as opposed to assumed) to the police wasn't justification for taking seven to the body. So I don't really see how it's relevant at all other than an attempt to deflect from what the fuzz have done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Because he had no obligation to comply even if he did in fact have a criminal record and the last time I checked such lack of compliance without presenting a capital threat (real, as opposed to assumed) to the police wasn't justification for taking seven to the body. So I don't really see how it's relevant at all other than an attempt to deflect from what the fuzz have done here.

So the police ask you to stop what you're doing (for whatever reason I don't know the details) and you don't have to comply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

So the police ask you to stop what you're doing (for whatever reason I don't know the details) and you don't have to comply?

Nope, you don't. Of course, you then leave yourself open to arrest and the full weight of due process.

 

What you do not leave yourself open to is summary killing unless you pose a capital threat to the police arresting you. Which really should be the sole focus of this matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Nope, you don't. Of course, you then leave yourself open to arrest and the full weight of due process.

 

What you do not leave yourself open to is summary killing unless you pose a capital threat to the police arresting you. Which really should be the sole focus of this matter.

The shooting was of course heavy handed (and totally wrong that goes without saying), but you do have to comply with the police, him walking off caused the issue to escalate, especially in states where people are allowed to carry weapons (I'm assuming that was the case here).

 

The police will get investigated and hopefully they'll face consequences for their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Why did he not comply? I don't know the history behind the story, but why was he walking off and going into his car?

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12503758/black-lives-matter-protester-shot-head-kenosha/

 

The USA is mental.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/26/kenosha-shooting-2-dead-1-injured-jacob-blake-protest-police-blm/

 

Pathetic. I dont believe in looting at all but to shoot someone over looting at a dealership (from what i saw elsewhere) ? I get it you want to protect property but wtf? And then walks past the cops almost trying to surrender almost and they just drive by him. Imagine if that was a black dude shooting someone in the same situation and then walking past cops with a gjn like thst. Unlikely.  Now granted they may not have reqlised he did anything wrong but still guy walks by with a gun like that....

 

America is dead

Edited by Jattdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

The shooting was of course heavy handed (and totally wrong that goes without saying), but you do have to comply with the police, him walking off caused the issue to escalate, especially in states where people are allowed to carry weapons (I'm assuming that was the case here).

 

The police will get investigated and hopefully they'll face consequences for their actions.

So?

 

I'm sorry, I think we're going round and round here and judging by the tone I don't think you're offering a mitigation for the police here, but I don't understand why the bolded part is in any way relevant if it is agreed that the police response was utterly and dreadfully disproportionate and would have been in all circumstances up to him actually brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
Just now, leicsmac said:

So?

 

I'm sorry, I think we're going round and round here and judging by the tone I don't think you're offering a mitigation for the police here, but I don't understand why the bolded part is in any way relevant if it is agreed that the police response was utterly and dreadfully disproportionate and would have been in all circumstances up to him actually brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to use it.

You don't think that bit you've highlighted plays a part in police officers minds when responding to calls?

 

It's ok to think the police did a shocking job but also that the unfortunate person who was shot played his role in the events that unfolded too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

You don't think that bit you've highlighted plays a part in police officers minds when responding to calls?

 

It's ok to think the police did a shocking job but also that the unfortunate person who was shot played his role in the events that unfolded too.

Speaking frankly, no, I don't. If you're fuzz and someone runs, you should be trained to either catch them as safely to everyone as humanly possible or even radio for backup and get someone else to apprehend them shortly thereafter. Not stick seven 9mm bullets in their centre of mass. That shouldn't be anywhere near official procedure except if facing a deadly threat.

 

As such, I think that the "unfortunate person" had precisely zero role in the events beyond being a victim of that event, and that holds true for any action he took or could have taken short of presenting a deadly threat to the police. So no, I don't think there's two sides to this. Apologies.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Speaking frankly, no, I don't. If you're fuzz and someone runs, you should be trained to either catch them as safely to everyone as humanly possible or even radio for backup and get someone else to apprehend them shortly thereafter. Not stick seven 9mm bullets in their centre of mass. That shouldn't be anywhere near official procedure except if facing a deadly threat.

 

As such, I think that the "unfortunate person" had precisely zero role in the events beyond being a victim of that event, and that holds true for any action he took or could have taken short of presenting a deadly threat to the police. So no, I don't think there's two sides to this. Apologies.

The fact remains, if he'd have complied he'd have likely not been shot.

 

Not that this excuses the police and what they did in any way.

Edited by Leicester_Loyal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
the fox

the fox

Posted
Posted

2 things I don't get:

 

1-Why shoot people in the head when you had the time to shoot them elsewhere. unless you want to be sure that they die. It's past self-defense, and borders execution. (I'm not talking about the example above, i just pointing out something)

 

And 2, shooting someone in self-defense? OK, I get that. But unloading almost a full clip on them? Why?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Innovindil

Innovindil

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, the fox said:

2 things I don't get:

 

1-Why shoot people in the head when you had the time to shoot them elsewhere. unless you want to be sure that they die. It's past self-defense, and borders execution. (I'm not talking about the example above, i just pointing out something)

 

And 2, shooting someone in self-defense? OK, I get that. But unloading almost a full clip on them? Why?

Same answer for both pretty much. Guns don't work like they do in the movies, one bullet rarely stops a person instantly unless it's in the head. Sometimes multiple pew pews needed for self-defense. 

 

And I'm obviously talking genuine self-defense not cops being trigger happy self-defense. 

 

16 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

The fact remains, if he'd have complied he'd have likely not been shot.

 

Not that this excuses the police and what they did in any way.

Well, I don't think I'd go with "likely". Hell, the other black dude that was shot in his own house without any cause at all was asleep ffs. Sometimes you don't have to do anything to get shot. 

 

I get where you're coming from, really I do. But end result, and the most important bit to take away is being a twat doesn't equate to justification of taking 7 bullets. At least it really ****ing shouldn't. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

The fact remains, if he'd have complied he'd have likely not been shot.

 

Not that this excuses the police and what they did in any way.

I must disagree on the argument that he has any responsibility at all for events here, the likelihood of him being shot should have been nil no matter what his course of action unless he presented a capital threat - that it wasn't is on the police and nothing to do with him whatsoever.

 

But yeah - guess we'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53926277

 

From what can be ascertained, police drove the protestors towards an area where counter-protestors (read: armed white supremacists) were waiting and things went from there.

 

It is interesting, however, that the police are charging Herr Rittenhouse with first-degree murder - I wonder what they have that implies premeditation, if anything?

 

Edit: Hang on - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/kenosha-suspect-kyle-rittenhouse-trump-rally

 

That might have something to do with it.

 

'nother edit: Or (and this is a bit tinfoil hat so bear with me) they don't want him punished because secretly they thought he did a good thing, but at the same time they know how bad not charging him looks, so they go for a big charge that looks spectacular but they know won't stick and ensure he gets a "not guilty" verdict sometime in the future.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

So?

 

I'm sorry, I think we're going round and round here and judging by the tone I don't think you're offering a mitigation for the police here, but I don't understand why the bolded part is in any way relevant if it is agreed that the police response was utterly and dreadfully disproportionate and would have been in all circumstances up to him actually brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to use it.

 

With regards to the part that was in bold, the police will probably claim they had ‘ reasonable fear’ that he was returning to his car to get a gun..

 

 

 

and this is exactly why every police in the states needs to have a bodycam. they had microphones but no bodycam. You can argue all day about wether it’s right or wrong that the police  carry guns but there has to be a much higher lvl of supervision and accountability if they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

With regards to the part that was in bold, the police will probably claim they had ‘ reasonable fear’ that he was returning to his car to get a gun..

 

 

 

and this is exactly why every police in the states needs to have a bodycam. they had microphones but no bodycam. You can argue all day about wether it’s right or wrong that the police  carry guns but there has to be a much higher lvl of supervision and accountability if they do.

Yeah, they will certainly say that as it's the only vaguely reasonable defence that they have. Of course it's utter bollocks to anyone with a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the matter, but they'll say it anyway.

 

Totally agree with the second paragraph, but unfortunately I don't see police unions and the disproportionate amount of power they wield agreeing to actually having their members held accountable for when they kill someone that shouldn't have been killed any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TamworthFoxes

TamworthFoxes

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, they will certainly say that as it's the only vaguely reasonable defence that they have. Of course it's utter bollocks to anyone with a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the matter, but they'll say it anyway.

 

Totally agree with the second paragraph, but unfortunately I don't see police unions and the disproportionate amount of power they wield agreeing to actually having their members held accountable for when they kill someone that shouldn't have been killed any time soon.

If my front door comes off one morning and armed police are here to arrest me I do EVERYTHING they ask me to do. If I’m innocent or guilty it matters not, if they say get bollock naked and do 20 press ups, I do it as requested. Reason being they have got guns and there is potential (possibly small) for me to get shot. Same with a police dog, I do everything they say because I might get bitten.

Now I’m sure American citizens are aware they live in a country where there police are armed, For this reason I’m always amazed they don’t do the same. Not commenting on the rights or wrongs of it but a bit of self preservation should kick in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

If my front door comes off one morning and armed police are here to arrest me I do EVERYTHING they ask me to do. If I’m innocent or guilty it matters not, if they say get bollock naked and do 20 press ups, I do it as requested. Reason being they have got guns and there is potential (possibly small) for me to get shot. Same with a police dog, I do everything they say because I might get bitten.

Now I’m sure American citizens are aware they live in a country where there police are armed, For this reason I’m always amazed they don’t do the same. Not commenting on the rights or wrongs of it but a bit of self preservation should kick in. 

As would I, and as would many people, most likely.

 

However, the point is (which seems to be being missed with unfortunate regularity here) that if you do that or not, it shouldn't matter at all - unless you post a deadly threat, you still shouldn't be getting shot by the fuzz and if you do, that's on them, and nothing to do with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...