This has been debunked. Dispatch video clearly shows the call was for Blake himself. Not for women fighting.
Here's the dispatch audio and a timeline of what happened. Just in case anyone wants to hear what went over the airways.
Should be noted that Blake was attempting to leave when the 9/11 call was made by Blake's ex. She refused to provide details to the dispatcher that would have allowed the police to track the vehicle and diffuse the situation. She escalated the events to a level they did not need to get to. When you consider it took three minutes from her call to when Blake was shot seven times in the back, things were obviously already to a heightened state of alert when officers arrived and that was going to result in a confrontation.
Blake was obviously not an upstanding individual and had differences with his ex-girl friend, but based on the evidence in the complaint, her call to 9/11, and her refusal to cooperate with dispatch in providing information, she escalated this to a point where something catastrophic was likely to happen. She's walking away from this squeaky clean, and she's the dirtiest of the bunch.
Had a knife in his hand, as alleged by the police. If you don't believe the police, fair enough we have a lot of reason not to, but to completely ignore their version of events to make up your own is weird.
Seems like people latched onto the "unarmed" man getting shot and refuse to concede there is evident that he may not have been unarmed.
I don't trust what the union is saying, so I guess we'll have to wait and see the full report, whenever that comes out. I thought there was cut and dry evidence of him holding the knife or something but apparently there is not. The cop shot him 7 times in the back, it makes sense that their version of the story is worse than what actually happened.
Had a knife in his hand, as alleged by the police. If you don't believe the police, fair enough we have a lot of reason not to, but to completely ignore their version of events to make up your own is weird.
Seems like people latched onto the "unarmed" man getting shot and refuse to concede there is evident that he may not have been unarmed.
My understanding of the events is that he was alleged to be going to the car to get his knife? Wasn't that the justification for shooting him as he was supposedly leaning into the car to get the weapon???
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
My understanding of the events is that he was alleged to be going to the car to get his knife? Wasn't that the justification for shooting him as he was supposedly leaning into the car to get the weapon???
There's the initial narrative of him being unarmed, only there to break up a fight, and peacefully walking away when shot in the back. Mostly supported by the first video, which appears to show this to be the case in light of no other information.
There was the counter narrative (I think mostly led by right-wing probably racists) which brought up him going to the vehicle to grab a gun and that Jacob Blakes was a pedophile (using his third degree sexual assault charge as proof).
Then there's new information. That includes the second video (other side of the vehicle with a bit of the confrontation between him and police), them finding a knife on the floorboard, the dispatch call, and the police union's version of events, plus authorities saying that Blake admitted to possession of a knife.
I think you're confusing the additional information and the false right-wing narrative as one in the same.
I think one of the problems is the short attention span, or whatever you want to call it, of the general public.
Blake was shot just over a week ago. It has not been a long time, a lot of this "new" information was even released a couple days after the shooting. But, I think, a lot people, it doesn't appear there is much follow up. This doesn't include people in this thread who are clearly open to conversation and new facts. But these people form their initial opinion, one way or another, and don't ever bother following up on it when new facts are presented.
There's people who think Blake was a pedophile despite complete proof that was not his charge. There's people who will refuse any acknowledgement about the knife despite authorities finding one and saying he admitted to possession (though, I could see an argument that he was on pain-killers from the shooting that maybe he would have also admitted to being an alien from Mars, so I don't want to say that anything is confirmed.)
I think it is perfectly illustrated by the Breonna Taylor killing. It seems like most people still think this was a case of completely wrong house, an incredible mistake by the police.
Nope, it was the exact house they wanted to go to. It was on the warrant. Along with her name. There was no mistake. (Big edit: Sorry, no mistake by the police going to the wrong house, could be a mistake on the warrant and the postal inspector that we certainly can't overlook. But likely won't change the fact that the shooting police will argue that they were "just legally doing their job" when they got shot at and returned fire).
I'm not excusing the killing. Very very much the opposite. But by not acknowledging that this wasn't a "mistake" by the police these people aren't realizing that a person got killed because of some insane laws that allow no-knock warrants to be executed by plain clothes police at night because some overzealous police force is afraid some drugs might be flushed down the toilet by an affiliate of a drug dealer. All in the name of the war on drugs.
Instead a lot of people are at a loss how police can go to the wrong house and shoot a person in her bed and not face murder charges.
If people don't understand why this will possibly go down as a legal killing, these people aren't going to be fighting for the right laws to get changed because right now we can all but guarantee this will happen again in some other jurisdiction, sadly.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 09-02-2020 at 11:32 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Here's the dispatch audio and a timeline of what happened. Just in case anyone wants to hear what went over the airways.
Should be noted that Blake was attempting to leave when the 9/11 call was made by Blake's ex. She refused to provide details to the dispatcher that would have allowed the police to track the vehicle and diffuse the situation. She escalated the events to a level they did not need to get to. When you consider it took three minutes from her call to when Blake was shot seven times in the back, things were obviously already to a heightened state of alert when officers arrived and that was going to result in a confrontation.
Blake was obviously not an upstanding individual and had differences with his ex-girl friend, but based on the evidence in the complaint, her call to 9/11, and her refusal to cooperate with dispatch in providing information, she escalated this to a point where something catastrophic was likely to happen. She's walking away from this squeaky clean, and she's the dirtiest of the bunch.
Yes the alleged rape victim who's been stalked by this maniac is clearly the dirtiest of the bunch. Holy ####.
There's the initial narrative of him being unarmed, only there to break up a fight, and peacefully walking away when shot in the back. Mostly supported by the first video, which appears to show this to be the case in light of no other information.
No one has suggested he was peacefully walking away. He had been in altercation with police, that is a given. The failure to control the suspect is largely the issue here.
Quote:
There was the counter narrative (I think mostly led by right-wing probably racists) which brought up him going to the vehicle to grab a gun and that Jacob Blakes was a pedophile (using his third degree sexual assault charge as proof).
This is where the vast majority of this counter narrative comes from, and it is just flat out lies. These people actually manufactured evidence of his "record" using screen grabs from separate documents from different states. And to be accurate, there was a complaint against him, he was never charged with any of the crimes in the complaint by his ex-girl friend. It is very likely he wasn't even aware of the complaint or the restraining order, seeing as his ex-girl friend was unable to provide an address for him and it was unlikely the cops would have been able to track him down.
Quote:
Then there's new information. That includes the second video (other side of the vehicle with a bit of the confrontation between him and police), them finding a knife on the floorboard, the dispatch call, and the police union's version of events, plus authorities saying that Blake admitted to possession of a knife.
Then there's the complaint from the ex-girl friend that seems to be ignored all together. Why is this not getting more scrutiny? To me, she SWATTED this guy. She built up a false case against him, then used the police to extract her revenge.
I do have a question about the knife and admission to having a knife. I carry a knife on me everywhere I go. It has a blade that is about two inches long. Is that a concealed weapon that gives cops the right to draw down and shoot me when I admit to having it on my person?
versus
Quote:
I think you're confusing the additional information and the false right-wing narrative as one in the same.
I think there's a little bit of that in your version too. The ex-girl friend's complaint sure paints a different picture of what was going on between the two and where the individual motivations were. That needs to be understood.
No one has suggested he was peacefully walking away. He had been in altercation with police, that is a given. The failure to control the suspect is largely the issue here.
There were a ton of people on social media saying he was breaking up a fight and walking away relieved police were taking over.
Yes the alleged rape victim who's been stalked by this maniac is clearly the dirtiest of the bunch. Holy ####.
Did you read the complaint by the ex-girlfriend? No, of course you didn't. That would require some intellectual curiosity, some investment of time, and not having some bull#### RW hate site do your thinking for you. Do yourself a favor and review the actual documents and timeline of events to get some insight into both sides of this Shakespearean tragedy. There is some serious MacBeth going on here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
There were a ton of people on social media saying he was breaking up a fight and walking away relieved police were taking over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Social media. Always the place to get your news and facts about what is going on!
Bro this is social media. Good gravy. If you're going to suggest, incorrectly, that "people" weren't saying something, don't get your underwear in a twist when someone disagrees with you, and run to the hills crying about social media not being important.
Bro this is social media. Good gravy. If you're going to suggest, incorrectly, that "people" weren't saying something, don't get your underwear in a twist when someone disagrees with you, and run to the hills crying about social media not being important.
Is this where you get your news? Is this where you get real information on issues? I hope to Christ the answer is no to both of them.
Is this where you get your news? Is this where you get real information on issues? I hope to Christ the answer is no to both of them.
I get my news from a wide range of sources like CNN, 538. But "people are saying" isn't media or news is it? Did you mean to write earlier "the news wasn't reporting?" lol. You're funny.
a person got killed because of some insane laws that allow no-knock warrants to be executed by plain clothes police at night because some overzealous police force is afraid some drugs might be flushed down the toilet by an affiliate of a drug dealer. All in the name of the war on drugs.
Instead a lot of people are at a loss how police can go to the wrong house and shoot a person in her bed and not face murder charges.
If people don't understand why this will possibly go down as a legal killing, these people aren't going to be fighting for the right laws to get changed because right now we can all but guarantee this will happen again in some other jurisdiction, sadly.
Well said.
I also feel the discussion is mostly missing a significant issue of the US legal system.
In Europe you can't kill someone just in case they might do something, in the US you can.
It's not just cops. There's been plenty of civilian cases where completely harmless people got shot by someone who thought they might be a threat.
This is really the issue on many of these cases, and really I think a major reason why it's so disproportionately black men who get killed. It's not that cops go out to hunt black guys, at least not mostly. They just imagine dangerous things might happen because "black men are dangerous" and react to those imaginary/hypothetical threats with deadly force.
The idea that you can respond with deadly force to something before it has actually happened is completely insane, yet something many Americans keep arguing is somehow okay. It's much of what this discussion has been about in some ways: "how likely was it that the latest person shot might have done something bad if he hadn't been shot". Was someone a criminal,.were they doing something suspicious or something normal, etc. Was it reasonable to think a guy going into the car was going to do something dangerous.
None of that should matter. In countries with a reasonable legal system, you can't kill someone because you think they might do something. You have to wait until they actually try to do it, or actually do it.
This is really the issue. Most of these shootings are based on hypotheticals. If you react to something possibly happening with deadly force, of course you're going to kill a hell of a lot more people than if you always waited for something to actually happen.
That's also why most of these cops aren't convicted. It's not just a policing issue, although it's also that.
It's that Americans for some reason have decided that pre-emptive killings are not murder.
That's what needs to change, and that would require a culture change.
(I do think that the culture change should start with the police, as you could actually train them to not kill people just because it would be legal.)
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I also feel the discussion is mostly missing a significant issue of the US legal system.
In Europe you can't kill someone just in case they might do something, in the US you can.
It's not just cops. There's been plenty of civilian cases where completely harmless people got shot by someone who thought they might be a threat.
This is really the issue on many of these cases, and really I think a major reason why it's so disproportionately black men who get killed. It's not that cops go out to hunt black guys, at least not mostly. They just imagine dangerous things might happen because "black men are dangerous" and react to those imaginary/hypothetical threats with deadly force.
The idea that you can respond with deadly force to something before it has actually happened is completely insane, yet something many Americans keep arguing is somehow okay. It's much of what this discussion has been about in some ways: "how likely was it that the latest person shot might have done something bad if he hadn't been shot". Was someone a criminal,.were they doing something suspicious or something normal, etc. Was it reasonable to think a guy going into the car was going to do something dangerous.
None of that should matter. In countries with a reasonable legal system, you can't kill someone because you think they might do something. You have to wait until they actually try to do it, or actually do it.
This is really the issue. Most of these shootings are based on hypotheticals. If you react to something possibly happening with deadly force, of course you're going to kill a hell of a lot more people than if you always waited for something to actually happen.
That's also why most of these cops aren't convicted. It's not just a policing issue, although it's also that.
It's that Americans for some reason have decided that pre-emptive killings are not murder.
That's what needs to change, and that would require a culture change.
(I do think that the culture change should start with the police, as you could actually train them to not kill people just because it would be legal.)
I will add a slight caveat to this, I'm fine with the UK's approach, they will happily shoot someone who has already used a gun or even a knife even if they might not be an immediate mortal threat to the officer or public at that moment, ie the police arrive at the scene of a stabbing and the guy with the knife dripping with blood doesnt drop the knife when ordered, you can argue the police should take them into custody but you at least know the guy is a real threat, he has already stabbed someone.
What the police shouldnt be able to do is shoot someone because they think they might be a threat, if you allow the police to harm people based on their assumptions that is where bias takes over from reality and also makes the police trigger happy, which they are in the states, in the US the cops shoot people because they are non compliant, that is not a reason to kill someone
I do have a question about the knife and admission to having a knife. I carry a knife on me everywhere I go. It has a blade that is about two inches long. Is that a concealed weapon that gives cops the right to draw down and shoot me when I admit to having it on my person?
Just for clarification, he admitted to having it in his possession after the incident according to authorities. And for extra clarity, in his possession was not defined and could mean that he admitted to having a knife in his car.
However, at the time of the incident, as alleged by the police union's retelling of events, he had the knife in his hand. Not in his pocket and concealed or in his car. This is reasonably collaborated with the video that has the officers yelling for him to drop the knife. So it's a pretty big false equivalency there if we're trying to compare a knife in hand after a violent struggle and a pocket knife in your pocket.
I would like to think that admitting to a weapon (or tool that can be used as a weapon), while not actively trying to use it or access it would not prompt the cops to draw down and shoot you, but unfortunately with Philando Castile's murder, we know that's not always the case:
"I thought, I was gonna die, and I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five-year-old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing, then what, what care does he give about me?
And this piece of #### murderer got off despite video evidence.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 09-02-2020 at 05:19 PM.
Just for clarification, he admitted to having it in his possession after the incident according to authorities. And for extra clarity, in his possession was not defined and could mean that he admitted to having a knife in his car.
However, at the time of the incident, as alleged by the police union's retelling of events, he had the knife in his hand. Not in his pocket and concealed or in his car. This is reasonably collaborated with the video that has the officers yelling for him to drop the knife. So it's a pretty big false equivalency there if we're trying to compare a knife in hand after a violent struggle and a pocket knife in your pocket.
I would like to think that admitting to a weapon (or tool that can be used as a weapon), while not actively trying to use it or access it would not prompt the cops to draw down and shoot you, but unfortunately with Philando Castile's murder, we know that's not always the case:
And this piece of #### murderer got off despite video evidence.
Here's the angles of video.
At no time does Blake have an officer in a head lock or have an officer in position of control. The opposite is true. This is actually infuriating because a single officer had control over Blake, pinning him to the car, but let him get loose. At least one of the other two officers should have been in on top of Blake at this point and established complete control by using the car as a force multiplier. It is just sad to see this opportunity missed. Also, at no time can you hear a command for him to drop a knife, and in neither video does there appear to be a knife in his hand. Now the video quality isn't the best, so nothing conclusive can be said from just the video.
I could tell you things about the union that would make you sick, but I won't bother. People will just accuse me of being anti-cop, which I am clearly not. I'm anti-bad cop and it just pains me to see bad cops get away with stuff that would land a regular citizen in prison. This is one of those times when the union is going to back their brother even though it is grossly obvious that he made a massive mistake that should lose him his badge and the other officers have to go through training again. Police should be held to a higher standard, but because we are hiring sub-standard people to do the job they get held to a much lower standard. Just another example of a failing American institution IMO.
None of that should matter. In countries with a reasonable legal system, you can't kill someone because you think they might do something. You have to wait until they actually try to do it, or actually do it.
This is really the issue. Most of these shootings are based on hypotheticals. If you react to something possibly happening with deadly force, of course you're going to kill a hell of a lot more people than if you always waited for something to actually happen.
But it ultimately comes down to guns. The window of time between when a person isn't a threat, to that person grabbing a hidden firearm and using it lethally on a cop or someone else nearby, is about 2 seconds. When handguns are everywhere in a community - in homes, on persons, in cars - every potentially violent encounter not only becomes deadly, but it becomes deadly immediately.
In the last 10 years, over 500 police officers in the U.S. have been shot and killed on duty. In that same period in the UK, 2 police officers have been shot and killed. Being a police officer in those two countries involves dramatically different exposure to lethal violence. There's no way police behaviour isn't going to be shaped by that exposure.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-02-2020 at 07:26 PM.
Just as an aside as I have read numerous times in this thread that these are instances where regular folk would be arrested and charged, the fact is that in Canada, police are protected or otherwise provided different standards when using force.
This is entrenched in the Criminal Code section 25 which states:
Protection of persons acting under authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
This includes the use of deadly force.
This is why these cases are so complex and why it requires extensive consideration beyond a "regular" homicide.
Further R v Nasogaluak 2007 - Allowance must be made for the exigencies of the moment. Officer cannot be expected to measure the force used with exactitude. It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to impose an obligation on the police to employ only the least amount of force which might successfully achieve their objective. To do so would result in unnecessary danger to themselves and others. Officers are justified and exempt from liability in these situations if they use no more force than is necessary, having to regard to their reasonably held assessment of the circumstances and dangers in which they find themselves.
I am not looking to absolved anyone, just pointing out that the issue is more complex than an iphone video and speaks more to the thoughts, judgments and feelings of those involved and whether those were reasonable, necessary and proportionate.
Last edited by Captain Otto; 09-02-2020 at 07:05 PM.
Also, at no time can you hear a command for him to drop a knife, and in neither video does there appear to be a knife in his hand.
I heard "drop it now" at the start of the first video when I first watched it despite believing he was confirmed to be unarmed. Also sounds like a female yelling "put it down"on current review. Of course could be a case of hearing what you think you hear given how hard it is to discern any of it.
But, the man who shot the video said as much despite saying he didn't see a knife.
"I heard them telling him, 'Drop the knife' when I was recording, and looking, I didn't see a knife," said Ray. "I was looking at his hands. When they said, 'Drop the knife,' I didn't see one."
Neither videos are clear but there is a couple frames people (blue lives matter...) have identified as showing an object. It could also be unfortunate ghosting of his hand due to video quality.
Of course for the union the'll claim that the smoking gun is...well the knife. A knife on floor of a vehicle and three kids in it would be odd to say the least unless it was planted.
If only the police could place cameras on their bodies somehow.
