Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

 

Which bullet killed him?  The 1st or the 7th?

[Sig1Hunter]

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

[SoCal Deek]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

OK.  So let’s move to the next step.  Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

I assume you think one shot would’ve been sufficient? Or two? Please pick the acceptable number of shots so we can all write it down.

[GG]

37 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

He did?  That is so unlike the chief gaslighter woods delighted that there are dead bodies in the streets.  But hey, as long as it's not in erie county it doesn't exist.   

[SectionC3]

40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I assume you think one shot would’ve been sufficient? Or two? Please pick the acceptable number of shots so we can all write it down.

 

I don’t assume anything.  I just want to know whether the fact of a prior sexual assault justifies shooting someone seven times in the back.  There seems to be a real struggle to answer that question on the part of the people who read this thread. 

52 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

Fake news.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

51 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don’t assume anything.  I just want to know whether the fact of a prior sexual assault justifies shooting someone seven times in the back.  There seems to be a real struggle to answer that question on the part of the people who read this thread. 

Fake news.  

 

...how do you have so much time to post with your extensive client list?.....hell the PPP thought was we have the likes of F Lee Bailey before us.....sounds more like Barnum & BAILEY, 3rd chair so noted.......

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The next step? You skipped all the way to the last step, my man.

Or, is it possible, in fact,  probable ...lTHAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO STEPS IN THE STAIRCASE OF JUSTICE????!  
 

(emphasis added for theatrical effect) 
 

It would make things a lot easier. 

[Sig1Hunter]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Or, is it possible, in fact,  probable ...lTHAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO STEPS IN THE STAIRCASE OF JUSTICE????!  
 

(emphasis added for theatrical effect) 
 

It would make things a lot easier. 

Lol...i believe that over the course of history, there have been several countries that have had a two step model in their justice system. Ironic that a lot of those countries are/were communist/socialist..

[Bakin]

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don’t assume anything.  I just want to know whether the fact of a prior sexual assault justifies shooting someone seven times in the back.  There seems to be a real struggle to answer that question on the part of the people who read this thread. 

Fake news.  

Resisting arrest

running to your car to get a weapon 

those are the big ones that justify it. 
The fact that he’s a sexual assaulter/rapist is just a bonus. 

[Penfield45]

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#JOURNALISM:

 

 

 

“Without evidence” is just journospeak for “against the narrative.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you can scream "self defense" all you want. nothing is going to change the fact he is going to rot in jail and spend the majority of his adulthood there. 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Penfield45

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

 

you can scream "self defense" all you want. nothing is going to change the fact he is going to rot in jail and spend the majority of his adulthood there. 

 

 

Welcome back, Sunshine.

[Penfield45]

On 8/31/2020 at 9:43 AM, Sig1Hunter said:

 

The cops saw it, and shouted for him to drop it. You can hear it on the video.

 

ah I see. so even if this is true...in America, you are allowed to shoot someone multiple times in the back and kill them.... because they are holding a knife? 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Penfield45 said:

you can scream "self defense" all you want. nothing is going to change the fact he is going to rot in jail and spend the majority of his adulthood there.

 

Doubtful at best.

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

 

ah I see. so even if this is true...in America, you are allowed to shoot someone multiple times in the back and kill them.... because they are holding a knife? 

 

 

 

 

You arent going to acknowledge my sincere thought to welcome you back? Sheesh...

 

and to answer your question: yes. You are justified in shooting a physically resistant subject that is armed with a knife and refuses to drop it,  when you can articulate a threat from that knife wielding felon (the lack of distance between the officer and the knife wielding felon). You shoot until the threat no longer exists. You dont shoot with express purpose to kill. If they were shooting to kill, he would have likely been popped in the melon.

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Penfield45 said:

ah I see. so even if this is true...in America, you are allowed to shoot someone multiple times in the back and kill them.... because they are holding a knife?

 

He died?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

You arent going to acknowledge my sincere thought to welcome you back? Sheesh...

 

and to answer your question: yes. You are justified in shooting a physically resistant subject that is armed with a knife and refuses to drop it,  when you can articulate a threat from that knife wielding felon (the lack of distance between the officer and the knife wielding felon). You shoot until the threat no longer exists. You dont shoot with express purpose to kill. If they were shooting to kill, he would have likely been popped in the melon.

Actually, I hadn’t thought about that...the melon popping.  Excellent point . 

[Penfield45]

12 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

You arent going to acknowledge my sincere thought to welcome you back? Sheesh...

 

and to answer your question: yes. You are justified in shooting a physically resistant subject that is armed with a knife and refuses to drop it,  when you can articulate a threat from that knife wielding felon (the lack of distance between the officer and the knife wielding felon). You shoot until the threat no longer exists. You dont shoot with express purpose to kill. If they were shooting to kill, he would have likely been popped in the melon.

 

"physically resistant subject" 

 

there were about 10 cops there and 1 guy holding a "knife". why can't you admit dogs are trained better than police in america. there was no reason to pull out a weapon and fire it. 

[Wacka]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He died?

Well, he can't sexually assault someone anymore, so for Penfield45, I guess that is the same as dying.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

"physically resistant subject" 

 

there were about 10 cops there and 1 guy holding a "knife". why can't you admit dogs are trained better than police in america. there was no reason to pull out a weapon and fire it. 

 

After he physically assaulted them and ignored commands to stop going to his car where he could retrieve who knows what, yes there was.

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, Penfield45 said:

 

"physically resistant subject" 

 

there were about 10 cops there and 1 guy holding a "knife". why can't you admit dogs are trained better than police in america. there was no reason to pull out a weapon and fire it. 

No. Cuz i wouldn’t send my dog to apprehend him if he had a knife either. The dog would certainly want a piece of him, but you don’t deploy K9s on known armed suspects. That’s because the human cops know the danger. The doggie doesn’t. Human training > doggie training. See?