- Nov 26, 2007
- 2,050
- 420
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
If even the president doesn't care for the law - how do you expect the mass will?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If even the president doesn't care for the law - how do you expect the mass will?It tells me we have a lot of people who don't care about the law.
Would he have shot seven times?Would the officer have shot a white man reaching for a knife on the floor inside the vehicle?
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.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.
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.
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.
Labor camps?
Seems like the answer is noHave any Trump supporters explained why Blake had to be shot 7 times?
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.
If you mean to say that it is the reaction of the environment to skin color, I agree.Skin color isn't the basis for the problem. It's the environment.
This does explain why he was shot. Not why he was shot seven times.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.
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?).Supposedly California (one of the largest prison populations) is slowly moving towards this model:Labor camps?
In Finland's 'open prisons,' inmates have the keys
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.
(e.g. sentenced to help in a social project)
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".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.
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.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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?