U.S. police filmed shooting unarmed Black man seven times in front of his kids
 

Jacob Blake had been trying to break up a fight and was entering his car when he was shot seven times in the back; he's currently in the ICU

https://news.trust.org/item/20200824043928-54dpd/

RIP

...I think he’s in Intensive Care, Oliver...


...It’s not reported yet in the U.K. so far as I can see, so I’ll try to see if I can find some more information later...I wish him a recovery from his injuries...

...I’ve just watched a vid and seriously, that can’t be right...7 times in the back like that, while he was walking away and grabbing his shirt from the back to immediately make the 7 shots ...?...that vid can’t be right, surely..?...

...I mean, that there was an attempted assassination...

Protests have erupted in the US state of Wisconsin after police shot a black man several times while responding to what they said was a domestic incident.

The man, identified as Jacob Blake, is in a serious condition in hospital.

Video posted online appears to show Mr Blake being shot in the back by an officer as he tries to get into a car in the city of Kenosha.

Protesters and security officials have clashed following the shooting and an overnight curfew was imposed.

Hundreds marched on police headquarters on Sunday night. Vehicles were set on fire and police used tear gas.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers tweeted following the shooting of Mr Blake, who was reportedly unarmed.

"We stand against excessive use of force and immediate escalation when engaging with Black Wisconsinites," Mr Evers wrote.

Kenosha police said the Wisconsin department of justice would be investigating the "officer involved shooting".

It comes amid heightened tensions in the US over police brutality following the killing of George Floyd in May.

A white police officer knelt on Mr Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes before he died in Wisconsin's neighbouring state of Minnesota.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53886070

------------------------------

Tragic and astonishing and abhorrent, interesting timing with the GoP conference this week

Not that there are ever particularly good excuses but... how do you explain away shooting someone in the back SEVEN times.

Having watched the video I have to be honest and say that it does look like he's reaching into the car for something and they did have to incapacitate him. I can't honestly see any way around that that wouldn't endanger officers or bystanders.

But then - with what ACTUALLY happened. There were plenty of opportunities to stop him before he even reached the car - either with a taser or physical tackle - yet they just sort of stroll round with him, wait til the door is open and he's half inside, then unload half a clip on him? I honestly feel like cops in the US are just given next to no training when it comes to handling active situations. No verbal conflict resolution, no tackling/restraining skills, no non-lethal techniques for stopping a suspect. It's just "shoot at them". That's the extent of their toolkit.

Before anyone says ‘well he was getting in his car, he was probably scared for his life!! #backtheblue’

It’s funny cops don’t feel scared for their life when white men get in their cars and literally attack them.

He should have laid on the ground
and stayed still.

The US police were created to keep slaves in line and they never got the memo that it wasn't their job to brutalise black people any more. Defund the ****ers.

This is the other side of it though. The answer has to be somewhere in the middle. This guy should quite clearly and for good reason have been stopped from getting back in that car and driving away - if he had driven off (rather than inexplicably deciding to ram the police car) there's a VERY high chance that he'd have caused a fatal crash or hit a pedestrian. There's clearly a huge mess with the US police not knowing how to use proportionate force... either using massive excessive force, or not being confident in using enough force to stop a genuinely high risk situation like this one.

I do think if someone has been told to stop and chooses to continue and reach into a vehicle (the man in the first video, to me, looks like he is clearly reaching into the vehicle - not climbing into it) then it would be a massive risk for that to continue - both to officers and bystanders - so some action has to be taken. Like I said though, from the video, there was ample opportunity while he was clearly unarmed to make a physical tackle or to use a taser if needed.

If they really wanted to stop him getting in the car....why not shoot him in the leg? He would ha e dropped like a stone and they could have then restrained him.

Lack of training, lack of care and lack of any moral compass. Hope he survives

American police definetly need better training in deescalation and non-fatal incapacitation tbh

...on the vid I watched, it’s really difficult to see if Jacob Blake was reaching into the car and whether any ‘threat’ could possibly have been felt...because his body going forward seemed at the exact same time as his shirt was grabbed and his forward body position would have been an instinctive resistance and reaction to that, if someone tugged my top like that, my body would go forward in resistance ...as it was obvious though that his intention was to get into the car/going around to the door etc and putting his hand on the door to open it...and if a ‘weapon in the car threat’ was a thought...then a shoulder or leg aimed shot would have been the thing if a shot was to be fired ...not 7 shots in the back, each one potentially lethal...

...I really do hope he survives, just awful...

Well exactly - they knew he didn't have a weapon on his person, if they thought he has a weapon in the car they had AMPLE opportunity to stop him getting anywhere near the door.

JUst to clear up the "shoot them in the leg" fallacy

Why not “shoot to wound” instead?

For a couple of reasons: First, shooting to wound someone may not stop the threat. If a person is shot in the leg, the threat may still exist as a suspect could still use his or her hands to fire a gun or stab with a knife.

Second, and most importantly, it takes a skilled marksman to hit someone exactly in the arm or leg, and, most officers are not skilled marskmen. In fact, outside of an old-fashioned TV Western, few people can make that shot, no matter the training.

Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, explained in a position paper for the Institute the physics involved in the notion of training officers – who are often running after suspects – to "shoot to wound."

"Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts,” Lewinski said. “For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.

"The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.

"There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect's forearm or a weapon in a suspect's hand in the time spans involved.”

David Klinger, a professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, put it another way speaking to ABC News -- with officers trying to stop a threat to their life or the lives of others, "Why would we want to injure or maim people?" he said. "It doesn't stop them."

What’s the law on police using deadly force?

Policy for the use of deadly force has been shaped by four U.S. Supreme Court rulings during the past 30 years.

A 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down policies that allowed officers to shoot a suspect just because they are fleeing police. The court ruled that a suspect has to be posing an immediate threat of serious physical harm in order for police to justify using deadly force.

In 1989, the court went further saying officers can use deadly force if it is proven to be “reasonable” based on the circumstances of a specific situation.

The third ruling on deadly force came in 1994 when the court ruled that officers do not have to use less lethal force before resorting to deadly force – for instance, an officer does not have to use a Taser before he or she uses a gun in a situation.

In 2015, the court ruled citizens could not sue police for using deadly force against fleeing suspects unless it is "beyond debate" that a shooting was unjustified.

Candace McCoy, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, suggested in an article in The Guardian that shooting to wound would lower the legal threshold for using deadly force.

“As a policy, [shoot to wound] is a really bad idea because it would give the police permission to take that gun out of the holster under any circumstance,” she said.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/he...r8FaEMj78u1bO/

I mean it's a fallacy simply because a GSW to the femoral artery is most likely going to kill you.

But anyway.

There is (quite clearly) a rather large gulf between "reasonable force" and "seven shots to the back".

Kenosha shooting: Protests erupt after US police shoot black man...



Protests have erupted in the US state of Wisconsin after police shot a black man many times while responding to what they said was a domestic incident.
The man, identified as Jacob Blake, was taken to hospital for surgery and is now in intensive care, his family said.
Video posted online appears to show Mr Blake being shot in the back as he tries to get into a car in Kenosha.
Authorities in the city declared an emergency overnight curfew after unrest broke out following the shooting.
Hundreds of people marched on police headquarters on Sunday night. Vehicles were set on fire and protesters shouted "We won't back down"


...rest of article...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53886070

unless your name is Arnie

I hope the police force aren't held hostage from doing their jobs from fear of riots happening. I doubt would-be rioters will discern between accidents, police having no other choice in difficult circumstances... And actual murders.

Donald needs to deasl with these violent mobs protesting on gossip and misinformation. |Its getting out of hand.

Its the police I am worried about

That, and the police must be purged of extremist influences. The US police has a lot of ties to racist groups that must be dealt with before retraining can be considered effective.

I agree mostly, but that last bit sounds like rhetoric - what racist groups do they have ties with?

It's widely known at this point, hell, the FBI warned the police of the influence of white supremacy groups in it's ranks and nothing changed. Just google white supremacy and the US police, it's quite staggering how deeply ingrained such groups are but then again, considering the origin of the police in the US, it's sadly not surprising.