Another view at Kenosha

[Helmut-WK]

It tells me we have a lot of people who don't care about the law.

If even the president doesn't care for the law - how do you expect the mass will?

 

[Helmut-WK]

Would the officer have shot a white man reaching for a knife on the floor inside the vehicle?

Would he have shot seven times?

It is already known Kenosha police is corrupt and presumably racist. See the link in post Today at 6:07 PM #94

 

[Helmut-WK]

Gun laws are irrelevant as in this case Jacob Blake was reaching for a knife and was shot. At this point he could’ve been reaching for a packet of peanuts and he would’ve still been shot because when you’ve just fought with the officers and managed to get free going to your car and reaching into the floor will get you shot every time.

Why should the police shoot at such a person? There are other means to handle such a case. Unless there is reason to believe there might be a weapon. Which is far more probably if everyone can have a gun legally.

 

[Vanellus]

Have any Trump supporters explained why Blake had to be shot 7 times?

 

[Arc F1]

Punishment is not enough. Often kids with some problems get criminal while being in prison. Up to a certain degree, it is better not putting them in prisons, but give them other ways of punishment.

Labor camps?

 

[Arc F1]

They are the result of poverty. Poverty is often the result of "high crime rates, drugs, etc.", and of poor education (no good school affordable). Which is the result of poverty ...

People may get out of such a vicious circle, but not everyone. And with prejudices against blacks from a rather criminal suburb, it is harder to get out of it.

The problems are intertwined, you cannot say color of skin plays no role when it is intertwined with the problems you mention.

In other countries, it might be other factors, as religion (Catholics in Northern Ireland, Muslims in France, or even Germany ...). Or anything else.

Skin color isn't the basis for the problem. It's the environment.

 

[Tone]

Labor camps?

Supposedly California (one of the largest prison populations) is slowly moving towards this model:

In Finland's 'open prisons,' inmates have the keys

Having completed about 11 years in the CDCR (CA Corrections) I know that they have already made some big changes in this direction, but it's gonna take a long time to overcome all the prison politics.

*From the article:

"Then, in the 1960s, researchers across the Nordic countries started investigating how much punishment really helps reduce crime. The conclusion: It doesn’t..."

**
"The lesson from Finland was that it was perfectly possible to drop the use of imprisonment [by two-thirds,]” he says, “and that did not disturb the crime trend development in Finland.”

What did work was a gradual reintroduction into normal life, the kind that the open prisons offer. About a third of Finnish inmates are housed in open prison, and Finland’s Criminal Sanctions Agency says inmates who go through open prisons are less likely to be arrested again. The reoffending rate drops almost 20 percent."

 

[Vanellus]

Have any Trump supporters explained why Blake had to be shot 7 times?

Seems like the answer is no

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why should the police shoot at such a person? There are other means to handle such a case. Unless there is reason to believe there might be a weapon. Which is far more probably if everyone can have a gun legally.

The officer shot because Blake was trying to get into a vehicle and the officer grabbed his shirt to pull him out of the vehicle while at the same time Blake reached for the knife in the car. At that point Blake posed a threat to the officer who was within arms reach.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Skin color isn't the basis for the problem. It's the environment.

If you mean to say that it is the reaction of the environment to skin color, I agree.

If you mean "environment otherwise: I already said that problems are intertwined. So with the same right you may reduce anything race problems to environment, or bad social environment to skin color. Whether such a reduction is helpful to see the whole picture, is another question.

 

[Helmut-WK]

The officer shot because Blake was trying to get into a vehicle and the officer grabbed his shirt to pull him out of the vehicle while at the same time Blake reached for the knife in the car. At that point Blake posed a threat to the officer who was within arms reach.

This does explain why he was shot. Not why he was shot seven times.

And you didn't understand my rhetorical question. I replied to a post which stated rather unconditionally why there was shooting with reference to situations in countries where firearms are not accessible for everybody.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Labor camps?

Supposedly California (one of the largest prison populations) is slowly moving towards this model:

In Finland's 'open prisons,' inmates have the keys

I would not call that model (I first heard of it in a report from Sweden) labor camps. And there are several other possibilities (e.g. sentenced to help in a social project). You should consider the individual case, there is no model that fits all scenarios. And the last resort is prison (unless we return to birching and related means - who wants that?).

 

[Vanellus]

The officer shot because Blake was trying to get into a vehicle and the officer grabbed his shirt to pull him out of the vehicle while at the same time Blake reached for the knife in the car. At that point Blake posed a threat to the officer who was within arms reach.

Your assertion that Blake "reached for the knife in the car" even if there were a knife at the time for him to reach for (a knife against multiple armed police officers?) would be ruled as inadmissable conjecture in a court of law unless he was holding the knife when he was shot and still holding it after he had been shot.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your assertion that Blake "reached for the knife in the car" even if there were a knife at the time for him to reach for (a knife against multiple armed police officers?) would be ruled as inadmissable conjecture in a court of law unless he was holding the knife when he was shot and still holding it after he had been shot.

No that would be stupid because a person is very likely to drop the weapon after being shot. So I doubt your claim is true.

 

[Tone]

(e.g. sentenced to help in a social project)

I would've jumped on this if it was an option!

Best thing I was allowed to do was fight fire, which I loved.

 

[Vanellus]

No that would be stupid because a person is very likely to drop the weapon after being shot. So I doubt your claim is true.

You missed the point. Saying Blake "reached for the knife" if he never actually grabbed the knife (assuming there was a knife) assumes a knowledge of his motivation which is impossible to know with certainty so would be ruled inadmissible - a defence lawyer would rightly cry "objection" and a judge would rightly say "sustained".

 

[Helmut-WK]

You missed the point. Saying Blake "reached for the knife" if he never actually grabbed the knife (assuming there was a knife) assumes a knowledge of his motivation which is impossible to know with certainty so would be ruled inadmissible - a defence lawyer would rightly cry "objection" and a judge would rightly say "sustained".

The relevant question is not whether it could be proven in a court that Blake grabbed for a knife, but whether the officer had reasonable suspicion that he might grab for a weapon and so become a threat. A "preventive" shot might be justified, but with two shots there are doubts that the second shot was necessary, so a second shot should be investigated. And with every shot the doubts become more serious. With seven shot it is next to certain there were shots without justification.

 

[Vanellus]

The problem is the unnecessary seven shots and the possibility of a criminal charge means one can't trust the police officer's testimony.