🇳🇱
@realcaseyrollins Come on now that a load of crap and you know it. Jacob walked away slowly and got into a car, thats it, he had no gun, he made no threats, he just walked away slowly.
There was plenty of time to tackle him, plenty of ways to handle the situation. There was no justification to shoot, even less of a justification to shoot him in the back, and absolutely no reason to unload a whole clip.
> he made no threats
Has that been established? I heard people saying that he did but didn't hear him say that in the videos I've seen so far
> Jacob walked away slowly and got into a car, thats it
False, he was fighting the officers, then he got up.
Also, why do you think he was getting into the car? Was he going to show them photo ID or something? A reasonable assumption is that, after fighting the officers previously, he is reaching in for a weapon.
> absolutely no reason to unload a whole clip.
I agree with this. Seven shots (I think that's how many were fire right?) seem to be a bit much.
He was resisting arrest, he was not "fighting police".. No eye witnesses I know of who were there claimed he was violent.
"why do you think he was getting into the car"... Well police have already admitted there was no gun in the car, so why do YOU think he was getting in his car. You are implying he did it to get a weapon, but considering we already know for a fact there was no weapon in the car doesnt that debunk your very claim?
The simple fact is this, unless an officer sees a gun in your hand, and that gun is aimed at them (or you threaten to shoot them with it) they are NEVER justified in shooting someone. You can not shoot a person with the intention to kill them on the off chance they might maybe have a gun.
Here's the video of him fighting the officers in case you haven't seen it yet.
> The simple fact is this, unless an officer sees a gun in your hand, and that gun is aimed at them (or you threaten to shoot them with it) they are NEVER justified in shooting someone.
Demonstrably false. Someone could have a knife and the officers might not have any other way to defend themselves. An assailant might have a bomb or grenade. Police have the right to self defense, their lives matter too.
> You can not shoot a person with the intention to kill them on the off chance they might maybe have a gun.
That's not what they did tho. Why do you think they shot him in the back and not the head? Their intention was not to kill, but self defense. Which is why I have an issue with them shooting him so many time, because for self defense, that's not necessary. One or two shots will do.
Ok, yes that video is new to me... But i dont see him being violent int he video at all. It is hard to tell because it is blurry but all I see is the police pinning him down and him trying to wrestle to get away. I do not see him punching or stabbing at police or exhibiting violence in any way other than trying to get away.
He didnt have a knife, he didnt have a bomb, so yes I do agree if he had a knife and was at close quarters and the police were about to be stabbed it could be justified to get off a shot.. but again thats not what happened here.. he didnt have a weapon of any kind and was shot 7 times in the back.. so your point is moot, at no point were the police lives in danger.
If you unload 7 bullets into someone then the intent is to kill. The reason they didnt shoot in the head, and the reason they never shoot in the head, is because it is a smaller target and harder to hit. They are trained to aim for the body, not the head, because in a fight your more likely to hit it. 7 shots at point blank range is an intent to kill in my eyes. By your logic if the intent was to immobilize him then they would have shot him in the leg not the chest before he even got to the car.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins@kafuka.me @realcaseyrollins@gameliberty.club apparently there was a knife in his car. As for the number of shots I would say to both of you that under pressure like that, if you think someone is going to try to kill you, youre not going to be able to carefully consider all of your actions. Youre trained to shoot center-mass and shoot until the threat is stopped
@realcaseyrollins@gameliberty.club
Fair, then id say this is a bit ambiguous.. specifically because the knife is on the floor (which suggests he may have had it in his hand when shot.. Thought here SHOULD have been body cams so we could see if this is the case.
But yea if it can be shown he had the knife in his hand when shot or was clearly reaching for it then I would cut the officers a bit more slack. A body cam would have went a long way to prove this. Ultimately i suppose i will wait to see wht evidence in that regard comes to light to confirm he was actually reaching for the knife.
@freemo @valleyforge @realcaseyrollins I been waiting for the body cam too. It still feels like a gray situation to me. I'm sure the footage exists, they just don't want it released, like with #GeorgeFloyd.
@realcaseyrollins@gameliberty.club
Im always naturally suspicious of cops as they do have a habit of planting evidence and covering up their murders when they happen. so to me body cam footage or something more concrete to show he was clearly reaching for his weapon will go a long way to settling any doubts... But for now I do concede that if the knife turns out to be legit and if it is true he was reaching for it then the cops had justification in firing, even if I feel their reaction was disproportionate to the situation.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins@gameliberty.club @realcaseyrollins@kafuka.me
They weren't wearing body cams. Their department doesn't have them.
@valleyforge yea, and that is why body cams need to become ubiquitous and enforced strictly.
@valleyforge @freemo Wow. The full story might never be told! I'm sure both the shooter and the officers will be quite biased in their accounts of events
Yea thats the bigger problem here. While I accept the cops may have been justified the truth is, they lobbied not to need cameras probably specifically so they can get away with murder and not face consequences... so I wouldnt be surprised.. What I can say is when I watch the video it isnt perfectly clear but he certainly doesnt seem to be reaching to the passenger side and onto the floor. He was still sitting upright when he was shot. So the knife explanation seems weak, but I cant really know.
If nothing else they need to be forced to wear body cams.
@freemo @valleyforge if i understand it, they couldnt afford it. sure defunding will help though.
Yea well defunding is stupid and i dont agree with it.. Most real solutions take more funding not less.
With that said thats no excuse there should be a federal law that all cops on duty need body cams that cant be turned off. If that were the case they would be forced to spend the money on body cams and fire cops if they need to.
@freemo @Locksmith i agree in principal but that would be a clear violation of the 10th ammendment. Also police have to go to the bathroom
@freemo @Locksmith im in texas. Here we have a state law passed a few years ago creating a grant program to fund the deployment of body cameras for police departments. I dont think its mandatory but just about every police department has adopted it
Well whether it would violate the 10th amendment isnt so clear. Obviously at first glance it may appear that way but in practice the Supremacy Clause of the 10th amendment gives a lot of wiggle room.. This is why Heroin is illegal at a federal level even though there is no explicit statement in the constitution which makes it illegal, and the Supreme court have upheld many ruling to prove that. Drugs arent the only example, there are countless federal laws upheld under the supremacy clause that arent explicitly stated in the constitution.
So while in theory it might look like a violation of the 10th amendment, in practice the courts would not see it as such.
With that said I really wouldnt be opposed to adding a new amendment to make it extra clear that cops are forced to wear body cams at all time while on duty.
As for the whole "what about if they have to go tot he bathroom". I would just say that a cop who is going to the bathroom. I would say there are two ways to handle that.. 1) the footage can only be reviewed with a court order, meaning there is a reasonable cause that the cop may be guilty and thus have their privacy violated.. or 2) integrate the body cams into the badge and allow a cop to leave their bade in the car if they go to the bathroom on the condition that while on a bathroom break they are not considered on duty and as such citizens would not heed to obey their commands as they would a cop.
@freemo @Locksmith I would argue that all of that stuff also violates the 10th amendment. I don't want the US constitution to become like the Texas constitution where there are literally hundreds of amendments that should be laws. I like the second option regarding the body cameras
I would tend to agree, it does violate the 10th amendment. But it is how the system of government works all the same so in a practical sense (as in not our opinion but the reality of it by those who have the power to interpret it) it does not violate it.
@freemo Yep