🇳🇱
@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.
QT: [https://mstdn.foxfam.club/@scrowder/104762540517674506]
> 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 @realcaseyrollins 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
Do you have a source verifying there was a knife in his car and that he had it in his hand when he was shot? I keep a knife in my car too, so unless he had it in his hand at the time that isnt enough IMO.
@freemo @valleyforge @realcaseyrollins@kafuka.me If going into your car for a weapon after fighting police isn't cause to initiate self defense IDK what is 🤷🏾♂️
There are always people who only believe in self defense for law enforcement under extreme circumstances. You're entitled to your beliefs, we just disagree on this.
@freemo @valleyforge @realcaseyrollins@kafuka.me Sounds like we're actually on the same page for once! Which is nice! 😎
I think we are on the same page more often than you realize honestly. When we do disagree it tends to be on minor points or points that just arent very easy to determine factually what happened.
Our guts tend to disagree, but our logic often tends to agree on many subjects I find.
@freemo @valleyforge @realcaseyrollins@kafuka.me Hmm. Perhaps you are right! Which facts we look at can surely skew our positions and opinions.
Thats just it, we dont disagree on that. Its really just a question of if he was a threat or not and if he was reaching or a weapon. The idea that a weapon was confirmed on the passenger side is new to me, and as such im more likely to agree with you.
@realcaseyrollins
No i agree, if he was actually trying to get a knife to fight officers, and especially considering they already tried to tase him, then I could see self defence being appropriate. I still feel they over reacted, but its less grievous in that case.
@valleyforge @realcaseyrollins