Kenosha police shoots black man multiple times in his back in front of his children, declares curfew

Why not taser him again? Honest question -- can it only be used once? Is it so ineffective as to not be of use in a situation like this?

 

That he will try to drive and escape to move his kids away from the scene is not logical?

So aside from "fear for life", assumption is now added to cops' arsenal of courtroom defense. "I assumed he was reaching for a gun..." coupled with "I feared for my life..." cops can do anything without repercussion.

 

I have stayed away for a long time to avoid toxic social media.

I'm jumping back in because the "debate" over this one has dragged me back.

Mr. Blake was in the wrong and clearly deserved to end the ordeal under arrest, but I'm at a total loss to understand how anyone thinks the cops slowly following and screaming at a man who was slowly walking away and then ultimately shooting him repeatedly in the back while they held his shirt was an appropriate outcome.

Watching that video I felt like I was watching an Austin Powers skit where the bad guy stood in front of the oncoming truck that was moving at like 1 foot per hour and let himself get run over. Why the hell did those cops not tackle this man? I just can't understand that. He didn't run to the car. He wasn't far away from them. He walked slowly to his car door and they slowly followed him shouting.

I just don't get it. I get that once that door was opened and he reached in the cops had a reasonable fear. I accept that. I don't think Mr. Blake was an innocent bystander. I just don't get why the time between him getting up off of the ground and him opening that door was allowed to happen by the officers. KNOCK HIM DOWN. SHOOT HIM IN THE LEG. TASE HIM. HIT HIM IN THE BACK WITH A NIGHT STICK.

There were so many opportunities to do something before they ultimately said "well I guess now we have to shoot him."

 

He is wearing medical gloves to avoid catching COVID from surface contamination. Good for him!

 

Right, him driving off is another distinct possibility. Him reaching for a gun also seems likely in the situation. Just because there are multiple outcomes doesn't mean it's illogical to assume he's reaching for a gun. If I were a juror, that's what it looks like to me. Particularly since I keep my own gun in the door panel. Many people with a record keep their guns in the floorboard too

 

Do we know this for certain?

All the details surrounding what preceded the confrontation are scant.

 

Whatever happened leading up, he tussled (is that calm enough of a word?), resisted arrest and refused to obey lawful orders. The ordeal should have ended with him in handcuffs.

Maybe then it ends up with charges against him dismissed I have no idea, but no way after what happened on tape would it be reasonable for the cops to shrug their shoulders and let him go get in his car and drive off.

 

I'm having a hard time laughing at any of this. This legitimately feels like we're sliding off the edge of a cliff. This type of tit-for-tat violence along political lines and endlessly smoldering riots are what precede actual civil wars.

 

I get what you're saying, but my question was moreso aimed at whether the attempted arrest was warranted in the first place.

 

Yeah I can't comment on that I don't really know. The thing is our system has to allow for the possibility that a bad arrest gets made. The time to sort that out unfortunately is in a court room seeking dismissal, not on the scene with the cop. That guy may have felt like they had no business arresting him, but he can't resist and refuse orders.

 

This is the paradigm that may need to be re-assessed.

A cop who arrests you, without probable cause that withstands scrutiny from an independent investigation, should not have carte blanche to kill you if you resist.

That putting the onus onto the citizen 100% has to stop. If you're a cop and you assault a person and arrest them and it turns out you had no good reason to do that, and the person resists and you end up hurting them, you should not be given immunity from your poor judgment.

Police and their Unions have done an amazing job of training the populace that it is reasonable for them to kill someone before seeing a weapon (or being threatened/fired upon). There is no reason this should be the standard other than it is what we've been told to expect.

 

The guy is wanted for rape and the cops knew it.

 

So the arrest was not in relation to the scene/incident, but was for a prior, got it. Thanks!

 

So let's reset the Blake arrest.

Cops have a warrant for his arrest and have been told by dispatch that he's been involved in an incident at a home where he wasn't wanted. They arrive on scene to arrest him.

Blake thinks they don't have the right to arrest him.

Do you think it would be a good situation to say that Blake should have the right to fight back and if he wins the tussle he can walk away free and clear?

There is truth to your point that cops should be held accountable for their actions during arrests, I totally agree. But that's again, after the arrest.

During the arrest the thing to do is simply comply with orders. Non-compliance doesn't justify getting shot (unless your non-compliance is deadly force) but it absolutely justifies being arrested using whatever force is required. You don't get to just say "I'm not going to let you arrest me today." (Tombstone reference)

 

There was a warrant out for his arrest. They had the right to arrest him even if he was asleep on the sidewalk when they showed up

 

The fact Blake had an outstanding warrant pretty much makes my hypothetical completely inapplicable to this scenario.

 

Gotcha, I didn't realize you weren't aware of that. Disregard are back and forth I thought you were arguing something you weren't.

 

eye witness says the police tackled him and tasered him and he got away (everyone seems to get away from tasers). No idea if that's true.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

 

At what point does "in fear for his life" apply to black men in a confrontation with police? does having your children in the car factor?