Non-racist event occurs in Minneapolis.

[Non sequitur]

"They say the shooting was unnecessary because Blevins was not a direct threat to the officers."

"Blevins' family members said he wasn't a danger while he was running away."

Running away and pointing a gun at cops... is not a danger?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thurma...-protesters-marchers-block-trains-2018-07-31/

Surely this example is not racism?

 

[Thedictator]

The true racists are the Blacks who are yelling Racism against Police who are just doing their Jobs.

 

[mala]

The true racists are the Blacks who are yelling Racism against Police who are just doing their Jobs.

meh tried to insert a gif but that seems disabled for some reason or this forum is broken.

anyway the point is there is nothing like some rando guy coming along and telling a group of people that have suffered at the hands of others that their suffering is illegitimate and they are the actual oppressors for pointing out their suffering.

 

[Thedictator]

meh tried to insert a gif but that seems disabled for some reason or this forum is broken.

anyway the point is there is nothing like some rando guy coming along and telling a group of people that have suffered at the hands of others that their suffering is illegitimate and they are the actual oppressors for pointing out their suffering.

That is a load of crap, we all have had oppressors in our lives, Like Muslims cutting off the heads of Christians. Christians nations are very Tolerant of Muslims living in their countries, but That is not the same in Muslim countries where Christians or oppressed and persecuted. Does the media and Liberals jump on this story day after day, no, they go after some police officer who is just doing his job and kills some criminal scum who was pointing a gun at them while trying to escape.

 

[Non sequitur]

meh tried to insert a gif but that seems disabled for some reason or this forum is broken.

anyway the point is there is nothing like some rando guy coming along and telling a group of people that have suffered at the hands of others that their suffering is illegitimate and they are the actual oppressors for pointing out their suffering.

What rando guy? What group of people? What oppressors and oppressées?

What does that last run-on-sentence have to do with this story?

 

[mala]

What rando guy? What group of people? What oppressors and oppressées?

What does that last run-on-sentence have to do with this story?

i wasn't talking about the op in anyway. i was addressing the other poster.

 

[mala]

That is a load of crap, we all have had oppressors in our lives, Like Muslims cutting off the heads of Christians. Christians nations are very Tolerant of Muslims living in their countries, but That is not the same in Muslim countries where Christians or oppressed and persecuted. Does the media and Liberals jump on this story day after day, no, they go after some police officer who is just doing his job and kills some criminal scum who was pointing a gun at them while trying to escape.

i'd probably have a funny quip to make here but i don't feel like it and in all seriousness you sound like you have some anger issues and you should probably see someone for. and that's about all i have to say to you about your spiel.

 

[USincognito]

The true racists are the Blacks who are yelling Racism against Police who are just doing their Jobs.

Wow, that is some serious gaslighting.

 

[dgiharris]

There are those who believe "any" infraction or wrongdoing is deserving of "whatever you get".

was this shooting okay?

#1) It is 100% legal to own a gun
#2) Open carry is 100% legal in the city this occurred
#3) The victim was fleeing police when he was shot and killed

Cops have a duty to protect and serve and that "applies" to the suspects as well. People panic, people get scared, people run. Running from police shouldn't be a death sentence.

Now for those with simplistic views, this is an open and shut case. "He ran, he had a gun, therefore he was shot, what is the problem?"

However, this is a huge problem.

If we are to be a nation of freedom and liberty, if we are to be a nation where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are real and not just lip service, then this shooting was wrong.

Now, on the scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being nothing wrong and 10 being setting-a-baby-on-fire wrong, this was about a 3. The second he looks back with a gun in his hand is the second police had the "right" to use force if they so choose. And they did.

I do not think that the officer should have shot him, however, given the situation, the officer did have "just cause" to shoot because technically his life was in danger at that moment.

I do not think this is a fire-able offense, I think the officer was just doing his job and making a judgement call that was within his purview to make.

I don't like this shooting at all, I do think it was wrong, but it was within the "acceptable bounds" of the law and reasonable use-of-force protocols.

Conversely, I do understand why the Black Community is upset because I am upset. The lives of citizens should not be so easily dismissed or snuffed out. Running from police should not be a death sentence in this country.

 

[Non sequitur]

There are those who believe "any" infraction or wrongdoing is deserving of "whatever you get".

was this shooting okay?

#1) It is 100% legal to own a gun
#2) Open carry is 100% legal in the city this occurred
#3) The victim was fleeing police when he was shot and killed

Cops have a duty to protect and serve and that "applies" to the suspects as well. People panic, people get scared, people run. Running from police shouldn't be a death sentence.

Now for those with simplistic views, this is an open and shut case. "He ran, he had a gun, therefore he was shot, what is the problem?"

However, this is a huge problem.

If we are to be a nation of freedom and liberty, if we are to be a nation where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are real and not just lip service, then this shooting was wrong.

The shooting of someone who turned and pointed a gun at police is wrong... because the Constitution and Bill of Rights???

Now, on the scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being nothing wrong and 10 being setting-a-baby-on-fire wrong, this was about a 3. The second he looks back with a gun in his hand is the second police had the "right" to use force if they so choose. And they did.

I do not think that the officer should have shot him, however, given the situation, the officer did have "just cause" to shoot because technically his life was in danger at that moment.

"...do not think the officer should have shot him...technically his life was in danger..."

Should the officer have given him a flower or paid off his student loans?

With his life in danger, a gun being pointed at him, what should he have done?

I do not think this is a fire-able offense, I think the officer was just doing his job and making a judgement call that was within his purview to make.

I don't like this shooting at all, I do think it was wrong, but it was within the "acceptable bounds" of the law and reasonable use-of-force protocols.

I don't think anybody likes the shooting.

Conversely, I do understand why the Black Community is upset because I am upset. The lives of citizens should not be so easily dismissed or snuffed out. Running from police should not be a death sentence in this country.

Unfortunate that a life has ended, yes. But it's ridiculous that an ethnic community would be upset about how this played out.

Nobody's life is being dismissed and he created the situation.

He had an open bottle of gin, his BAC was two times the legal limit, was firing in the air and at the ground, took off running and pointed a gun at the police.

Not just "running from the police".


The entirety of your post is riddled with contradictions and omissions.

Seriously, you really can't believe all these things you are saying?

 

[dgiharris]

The shooting of someone who turned and pointed a gun at police is wrong... because the Constitution and Bill of Rights???

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the foundation of our country and justice system. It's purpose is to protect our liberties and rights. This means that our rights should not be cavalierly dismissed.

I place an extreme importance and value on the lives of citizens. Any free society should. This means that in order to take the life of a citizen you need extraordinary circumstances. Imo, this incident "barely" qualifies and it qualifies more so by technicality than by actual danger.

"...do not think the officer should have shot him...technically his life was in danger..."

Should the officer have given him a flower or paid off his student loans?

With his life in danger, a gun being pointed at him, what should he have done?

You keep saying "who turned and pointed a gun at police" with the inference that the police were in real danger. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being no danger at all and 10 being holding a bucket of nitro-glycerin while listening to loud rap music, the cops were at a 2, maybe a 3 at best.

Look, given this situation, even if the suspect actually "Tried" to shoot the police odds are good he would not have hit them. The suspect was fleeing, trying to get away, so the police were not in overt imminent threat type danger. Sure, the situation is tense, and there is definitely potential for things to go wrong, but this was not a "him or me I need to draw down" gunfight at the OK Corral no matter how bad you are trying to paint it that way.

As a nation, we've come to accept a certain amount of group-think in regards to police shootings. If police are in "any" sort of danger whatsoever then we've bought into the notion that it is okay for them to kill citizens.

Yes, their jobs are dangerous, but that should not be a license to kill.

Unfortunate that a life has ended, yes. But it's ridiculous that an ethnic community would be upset about how this played out.

It isn't ridiculous.

I can link you to dozens of whites with guns threatening officers and yet said white person doesn't get shot and killed.

So there is this perception backed by hard mathematical data that says if you are black or brown and get into a conflict with police, your odds of being killed are way higher than if you would be white in that exact same situation.

Similarly, the community places a lot of value on the lives of the citizenry and feels that killing citizens for breaking the law is extreme and should require more burden than what is currently acceptable.

Breaking the law in this country just shouldn't be a death sentence, the police should make every effort to protect and serve and that includes the criminals as well.

He had an open bottle of gin, his BAC was two times the legal limit, was firing in the air and at the ground, took off running and pointed a gun at the police.

Are we going to go back in time and use information we couldn't have possibly known at the moment of the incident.

I saw the video once, when police arrived they have no idea what his Blood Alcohol level is. They have no idea whether he has a permit for that gun or not. What we do know is that he is a citizen of the United States and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Obviously, the guy is an idiot and ran and made the situation worse...

Look, I really don't think you get my point. Your point is simple. He broke the law, he ran from cops, he endangered their lives, he was shot, case close.

My point is that breaking the law shouldn't be a death sentence, the cops were in danger, yes, but they weren't in "Shoot out at the OK Corral" level of danger. It was enough danger to reach the "threshold" to use lethal force but IMO just barely. The suspect did NOT shoot at the cops. Pointing a gun while running is not shooting. Similarly pointing a gun while running and turning backwards is not as dangerous as you try to make it sound. But it is dangerous "enough" that the officers lives were at risk thus I do reluctantly stand by their decision to use lethal force.

The entirety of your post is riddled with contradictions and omissions.

Seriously, you really can't believe all these things you are saying?

It seems that way to you because you are trying to make a complex subject simple.

I'm trying to balance the very complex socio-political ramifications of Enforcing the Law in a free society in which owning guns is 100% legal and the citizenry is "supposed" to have Rights. Similarly, said Citizenry is "supposed" to be considered innocent until proven guilty... But at the same time the police officers do have a right to protect their own lives. However, they also have a Constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the lives of the citizenry.

So it may appear that I'm waffling back and forth... but I'm not. I just realize all the parameters and I refuse to make this a simple "he broke the law so he gets what he gets" type of argument. Life is more complex than that...

or it least it should be.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The true racists are the Blacks who are yelling Racism against Police who are just doing their Jobs.

Perhaps you were confused about what's being protested...

They yell racism against the police who aren't doing their job correctly.

Sounds like you've fallen for the rhetoric of far-right pundits who cherry picked a few examples from the fringes of the movement, and projected that onto the entire group.

we all have had oppressors in our lives, Like Muslims cutting off the heads of Christians. Christians nations are very Tolerant of Muslims living in their countries, but That is not the same in Muslim countries where Christians or oppressed and persecuted.

You're employing a logical fallacy here...

You're basically trying to downplay a bad thing by doing the "anything that's not as bad as the absolute worst thing, shouldn't be complained about".

...sort of like if I said "you've got no right to complain about someone stealing your bike, because that other guy got his house burned down"

"We all have had oppressors in our lives" is a false equivalency, I think you're smart enough to know that not all oppression is equal, and that certain groups have experienced far more of it than others. (The black community being one such group)

Unless you're actually saying that your idea of an ideal environment in our country is "anything that's not as bad as the way Christians are treated in Islamic countries"?

I tend to want to set the bar higher than that...

 

[usexpat97]

Did the video ever show him actually pointing the gun at the cops? He could have been "reaching" for it (as the police PR department loves to say) in order to drop it. Even though carrying a gun is perfectly legal, that is all the excuse the cops need.

 

[Non sequitur]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the foundation of our country and justice system. It's purpose is to protect our liberties and rights. This means that our rights should not be cavalierly dismissed.

I place an extreme importance and value on the lives of citizens. Any free society should. This means that in order to take the life of a citizen you need extraordinary circumstances. Imo, this incident "barely" qualifies and it qualifies more so by technicality than by actual danger.

You keep saying "who turned and pointed a gun at police" with the inference that the police were in real danger. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being no danger at all and 10 being holding a bucket of nitro-glycerin while listening to loud rap music, the cops were at a 2, maybe a 3 at best.

Look, given this situation, even if the suspect actually "Tried" to shoot the police odds are good he would not have hit them. The suspect was fleeing, trying to get away, so the police were not in overt imminent threat type danger. Sure, the situation is tense, and there is definitely potential for things to go wrong, but this was not a "him or me I need to draw down" gunfight at the OK Corral no matter how bad you are trying to paint it that way.

As a nation, we've come to accept a certain amount of group-think in regards to police shootings. If police are in "any" sort of danger whatsoever then we've bought into the notion that it is okay for them to kill citizens.

Yes, their jobs are dangerous, but that should not be a license to kill.

They didn't shoot him on site, they didn't shoot him when he took off, nor when they were chasing him; they knew he had a gun the whole time. This would be a 2, 3 or 4.

The imminent danger was when he grabbed his gun from his right side, turned and aimed it at the officer from his left side. That is not a 2 or 3 on the danger scale.

And that situation is not what happened in your false analogous "gunfight at the OK Corral".

It's disturbing how many different ways you see the a threat having a gun pointed at you not really being a threat.

It isn't ridiculous.

I can link you to dozens of whites with guns threatening officers and yet said white person doesn't get shot and killed.

Link away.

And please, make sure they are the same type of situation. Not just "person with gun around officers".

So there is this perception backed by hard mathematical data that says if you are black or brown and get into a conflict with police, your odds of being killed are way higher than if you would be white in that exact same situation.

Based on just interactions, you are more likely to be killed by police if you are white.

Similarly, the community places a lot of value on the lives of the citizenry and feels that killing citizens for breaking the law is extreme and should require more burden than what is currently acceptable.

Breaking the law in this country just shouldn't be a death sentence, the police should make every effort to protect and serve and that includes the criminals as well.

You keep leaving out that whole point-a-gun thing...

It sounds like the police did, in this situation, make every effort. Again, he wasn't shot on site, nor just running.

Are we going to go back in time and use information we couldn't have possibly known at the moment of the incident.

I saw the video once, when police arrived they have no idea what his Blood Alcohol level is. They have no idea whether he has a permit for that gun or not. What we do know is that he is a citizen of the United States and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Obviously, the guy is an idiot and ran and made the situation worse...

I'll make a list of what wasn't and what was known, by the police (911 call or in person).

Unknown:
BAC
Gun permit

Known:
Looked intoxicated (911 call)
Drinking in the street (911 call)
Previously firing gun in the air and in the ground (911 call)
Adults and children around (911 call)
Open bottle of liquor (in person)

Nobody is going back in time to justify anything. His BAC and having (or not having) a permit is irrelevant, given what they knew and were told.

Look, I really don't think you get my point. Your point is simple. He broke the law, he ran from cops, he endangered their lives, he was shot, case close.

You could remove "broke the law" and "ran from cops" and my point would stand. I think you are adding (unnecessary) things to change the narrative.

My point is that breaking the law shouldn't be a death sentence, the cops were in danger, yes, but they weren't in "Shoot out at the OK Corral" level of danger. It was enough danger to reach the "threshold" to use lethal force but IMO just barely. The suspect did NOT shoot at the cops. Pointing a gun while running is not shooting. Similarly pointing a gun while running and turning backwards is not as dangerous as you try to make it sound. But it is dangerous "enough" that the officers lives were at risk thus I do reluctantly stand by their decision to use lethal force.

Actually, in the final report, they found a brass cartridge from his gun near his body.

I'm wondering if you'll accept he did fire it and it changes anything at all, or you'll double down on how not-threatening it still was?

It seems that way to you because you are trying to make a complex subject simple.

I'm trying to balance the very complex socio-political ramifications of Enforcing the Law in a free society in which owning guns is 100% legal and the citizenry is "supposed" to have Rights. Similarly, said Citizenry is "supposed" to be considered innocent until proven guilty... But at the same time the police officers do have a right to protect their own lives. However, they also have a Constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the lives of the citizenry.

So it may appear that I'm waffling back and forth... but I'm not. I just realize all the parameters and I refuse to make this a simple "he broke the law so he gets what he gets" type of argument. Life is more complex than that...

or it least it should be.

You aren't waffling, per se, but are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

And, yes, life is complex.

But being drunk, running from the police, turning back and firing at an officer, then getting shot by that officer isn't complex.

 

[Non sequitur]

Did the video ever show him actually pointing the gun at the cops? He could have been "reaching" for it (as the police PR department loves to say) in order to drop it. Even though carrying a gun is perfectly legal, that is all the excuse the cops need.

Yes.

 

[dgiharris]

They didn't shoot him on site, they didn't shoot him when he took off, nor when they were chasing him; they knew he had a gun the whole time. This would be a 2, 3 or 4.

The imminent danger was when he grabbed his gun from his right side, turned and aimed it at the officer from his left side. That is not a 2 or 3 on the danger scale.

And that situation is not what happened in your false analogous "gunfight at the OK Corral".

It's disturbing how many different ways you see the a threat having a gun pointed at you not really being a threat.



Link away.

And please, make sure they are the same type of situation. Not just "person with gun around officers".


Based on just interactions, you are more likely to be killed by police if you are white.



You keep leaving out that whole point-a-gun thing...

It sounds like the police did, in this situation, make every effort. Again, he wasn't shot on site, nor just running.




I'll make a list of what wasn't and what was known, by the police (911 call or in person).

Unknown:
BAC
Gun permit

Known:
Looked intoxicated (911 call)
Drinking in the street (911 call)
Previously firing gun in the air and in the ground (911 call)
Adults and children around (911 call)
Open bottle of liquor (in person)

Nobody is going back in time to justify anything. His BAC and having (or not having) a permit is irrelevant, given what they knew and were told.


You could remove "broke the law" and "ran from cops" and my point would stand. I think you are adding (unnecessary) things to change the narrative.


Actually, in the final report, they found a brass cartridge from his gun near his body.

I'm wondering if you'll accept he did fire it and it changes anything at all, or you'll double down on how not-threatening it still was?


You aren't waffling, per se, but are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

And, yes, life is complex.

But being drunk, running from the police, turning back and firing at an officer, then getting shot by that officer isn't complex.

I'm not waffling or in any bout of cognitive dissonance.

"If" the subject actually fired his gun at police, then that raises that 1 to 10 scale from a 3 to a 8.
Again, in my post I do side with the cops use of force. So again, not sure how that qualifies as waffling for you when I'm agreeing. You will have to learn to take Yes for an answer.

Similarly, information that he was "shooting the gun" and "drinking in public" is information that should not be the holy grail. When people call in to the cops they often embellish which is what happened to John Crawford who was holding the BB gun in Walmart. The caller who called police severely6 exaggerated the situation and said John was pointing the gun at people and threatening people in Walmart when that was never even close to the case as verified by the Walmart security footage.

My last entry in this back and forth argument. My standpoint is that the lives of the citizenry are very VERY important as are our rights. The State should have to meet an extraordinary amount and level burden in order to rob a citizen of his life. That burden needs to include imminent threat. In this situation, I feel that burden was "barely" met, but it was met nonetheless. Not sure how in your mind that equates to cognitive dissonance but whatever. I've made my argument and explained my rationale.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm not waffling or in any bout of cognitive dissonance.

"If" the subject actually fired his gun at police, then that raises that 1 to 10 scale from a 3 to a 8.
Again, in my post I do side with the cops use of force. So again, not sure how that qualifies as waffling for you when I'm agreeing. You will have to learn to take Yes for an answer.

Similarly, information that he was "shooting the gun" and "drinking in public" is information that should not be the holy grail. When people call in to the cops they often embellish which is what happened to John Crawford who was holding the BB gun in Walmart. The caller who called police severely6 exaggerated the situation and said John was pointing the gun at people and threatening people in Walmart when that was never even close to the case as verified by the Walmart security footage.

My last entry in this back and forth argument. My standpoint is that the lives of the citizenry are very VERY important as are our rights. The State should have to meet an extraordinary amount and level burden in order to rob a citizen of his life. That burden needs to include imminent threat. In this situation, I feel that burden was "barely" met, but it was met nonetheless. Not sure how in your mind that equates to cognitive dissonance but whatever. I've made my argument and explained my rationale.

My mind does quite easily. The fact that you spend so much time defending and arguing against what happened, yet simultaneously agree that the burden was met for it to happen says otherwise.

But you keep moving those goalposts, as more data comes out, and your responses become more and more general and vague.

Also, I've never disagreed with the lives of our citizenry and our rights being very important.

 

[SolomonVII]

I imagine that many blacks, who are more victimized by criminals than by the cops going after the bad guys, would be pleased that the police are doing their jobs well in this instance.

BLM does not speak for all blacks.