NHLPA discussing with players postponing games in light of Kenosha incident

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you resist arrest and try stealing a cops taser like Rayshard Brooks did, or resist arrest and go into your car and reach for something like Jacob Blake did, etc. What exactly do you expect might happen? That's not putting a cop at ease and making an already tense situation even higher.

Does it justify them being shot? Probably not, but you're giving a cop a reason to maybe do so.

It's why while there needs to be some police reform at a minimum, some people need to also be taught to not fight with the cops. This goes for if you're black, white, asian, purple, alien, etc.
No it f***ing doesn't, and if you still don't get that, again, that's why we need these things.
 
I'm sure Blake was reaching into his car to get a weapon that we would use in an outnumbered fight vs the police (with their weapons already drawn), all in front of his kids who were in the car.

Yes. Definitely.

:facepalm:

Cops had plenty of time and numbers to subdue him before he walked around the vehicle to open the driver-side door. No need to have shot him multiple times.

But they know how to de-escalate confrontations and subdue white people, yes? Yes.

Zero explanation you an provide to justify the shooting of Blake.



Exhibit A as to why you don't let a suspect reach into his car.
 
Threads like this only accomplish one thing...show us how divided we are as a society. A bunch of you in this thread need to accept that some folks don't see these issues in the same light that you do. We have people on both sides who think their POV is the only one that counts & any differing opinions makes someone a racist/hater/facist etc. Zero tolerance for fair open discourse won't improve the situation and only divides us further.
 
Agree to disagree, not sure what else to tell you. I only know myself and I'd never put myself in a situation to potentially get shot by the cops, and I've been pulled over by them a few times in my life.
Kyle Rittenhouse had an AR-15 that he just used on three people. He was arrested unharmed. Same police department.

If we can't admit this is a race issue, then we're being willfully ignorant.
 
What's odd about "people need to stop getting shot"?

Seems like a cold take to me.

I don't think you've fully considered the ramifications of what you are advocating. The police absolutely do need to be able to use lethal force on people at certain times. If you want to get into a breakdown of whether each specific incident is justified or not I'm happy to do that; some were and some were not. But I did not think this was the right place for politics.

What I find odd is your proposed and no doubt purposefully-vague-as-rhetoric solution of "no more sports until murderers are held accountable." Does someone subject to a lawful trial but acquitted count as held accountable? Does someone subjected to an investigation (perhaps conducted by local or state police or the Department of Justice, and then not charged as a result) mean they've been held accountable? Are we not playing basketball, hockey, football or baseball again until the trial is over? If they are acquitted under the rule of law are we never playing again? Have you considered that perhaps your preferred definition of "murderer," does not align with either existing legal or moral definitions that a majority might have? Etc.

Seems like an odd take to me on many levels.
 
Kyle Rittenhouse had an AR-15 that he just used on three people. He was arrested unharmed. Same police department.

If we can't admit this is a race issue, then we're being willfully ignorant.

1) You mean those people that were coming after him and threatening to kill him? Those three people? I'm sorry, but they were dumb to go after a guy knowing he has an AR-15 on him. That's self-defense

2) He didn't resist arrest, and immediately got down on their floor and surrendered. That's why he was arrested unharmed.

It doesn't have to do with race. Had he pulled his AR-15 on the cops, I guarantee he would have been shot by them too.
 
Kyle Rittenhouse had an AR-15 that he just used on three people. He was arrested unharmed. Same police department.

If we can't admit this is a race issue, then we're being willfully ignorant.
Did he resist arrest and fight with police too??
If he did, then yes, he is an idiot o. Top of everything else
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdJovanovski
I don't think you've fully considered the ramifications of what you are advocating. The police absolutely do need to be able to use lethal force on people at certain times. If you want to get into a breakdown of whether each specific incident is justified or not I'm happy to do that; some were and some were not. But I did not think this was the right place for politics.

What I find odd is your proposed and no doubt purposefully-vague-as-rhetoric solution of "no more sports until murderers are held accountable." Does someone subject to a lawful trial but acquitted count as held accountable? Does someone subjected to an investigation (perhaps conducted by local or state police or the Department of Justice, and then not charged as a result) mean they've been held accountable? Are we not playing basketball, hockey, football or baseball again until the trial is over? If they are acquitted under the rule of law are we never playing again? Have you considered that perhaps your preferred definition of "murderer," does not align with either existing legal or moral definitions that a majority might have? Etc.

Seems like an odd take to me on many levels.

This is just being deliberately obtuse.
 
The guy didn't seem like a saint. The charges in the warrant were pretty serious and he seems to have a history of violence, he was charged with brandishing a firearm in a bar few years prior.

That said, how a bunch of cops can't subdue him without killing him is pretty pathetic. And idk how a PD in 2020 doesn't have body cams when trying to serve an arrest warrant.
 
1) You mean those people that were coming after him and threatening to kill him? Those three people? I'm sorry, but they were dumb to go after a guy knowing he has an AR-15 on him. That's self-defense

2) He didn't resist arrest, and immediately got down on their floor and surrendered. That's why he was arrested unharmed.

It doesn't have to do with race. Had he pulled his AR-15 on the cops, I guarantee he would have been shot by them too.
Sorry, you don't to show up with a f***ing assault rifle and claim self-defense. We was clearly adversarial.
 
The guy didn't seem like a saint. The charges in the warrant were pretty serious and he seems to have a history of violence, he was charged with brandishing a firearm in a bar few years prior.

That said, how a bunch of cops can't subdue him without killing him is pretty pathetic. And idk how a PD in 2020 doesn't have body cams when trying to serve an arrest warrant.

They could, they just didn't want to.

They do, they're just not on.

We need to stop making this discussion about incompetence.
 
He was dumb to do that, I won't argue that. That said, it still doesn't change the fact that 3 people still ran after the guy and threatened to kill him.
So if you were out rallying for whatever cause you believe in, and somebody who believes the opposite showed up with a deadly weapon, you'd just leave him alone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad