When Black Lives Matter goes too far. The case of Jacob Blake.

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here are the facts of this case

The Wikipedia page on this case shows conflicting accounts of what happened. For example the officer who claimed Blake had a knife was unable to describe said knife.

Max has taken the police account of events and claimed that alone is factual.

He has the same problem with facts and opinion that Oralloy has, in both cases ‘facts’ are what supports their own racist ideology, not what actually happened.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Ok Izzy. Here is the important question. If there was clear evidence that he was in fact carrying a knife, would that change your mind?

The point of this thread is that in these cases the facts should matter. When these cases are judges based on political narrative without regard for the facts it discredits groups like Black Lives Matter.

There are many possible facts that would change my judgment in this case; for example if he wasn't armed, or if he was complying with police at the time I was take the other side.

The facts matter (at least they should).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Ok Izzy. Here is the important question. If there was clear evidence that he was in fact carrying a knife, would that change your mind?

In the back 7 times as he was fleeing with his kids in the possible line of fire?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Instead of dealing with his cavalier use of the word facts, Max wants to deal with hypotheticals. What if this, what if that? Etc.etc. It never ends. Stick to the facts, the actual facts not ones that have been spun to ****.

What does a knife mean anyway? There’s a huge range of knives ranging from some razor sharp survival dagger wielded by Sylvester Stallone in the First Blood movies to a plastic spreader you can get in a packet of cheese and crackers, and everything in between.

There’s a Freak Brothers cartoon where Phineas and Franklin get stopped coming back from Mexico. One cop shrieks “He had a knife,” while holding a tiny penknife between two fingers.

Great News about the New Freak Brothers film coming out if you’ve not heard.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

The question is; is there any fact that will get you to change your mind? This is a political narrative that causes you to make up your mind without taking the facts into account.

If you can provide me with clear evidence that Jacob Blake did not have a knife, I would admit it, it would change my opinion about this case. So let me ask the question again? Is there any fact that would cause you to change your mind in spite of your ideological narrative.

If I can post a clear, authenticated body cam picture that shows Jacob Blake did, in fact, have a knife... would it change your opinion?

0 Replies

Some people say it is NEVER murder when a White police officer shoots a Black man.

Other people say it is ALWAYS murder when a White police officer shoots a Black man.

These two statements are equally extreme. Each case should be evaluated independently based on the facts.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Ok Izzy. Here is the important question. If there was clear evidence that he was in fact carrying a knife, would that change your mind?

In the back 7 times as he was fleeing with his kids in the possible line of fire?

Exactly! Who shoots a person in the back??

2 Replies

@Mame,

This is a textbook example of group think.

1. I ask a very clear question, which is quoted?
2. Bill ignores the question and interjects a completely unrelated statement (which is an emotional appeal).
3, Mame ignores the question and responds to the completely unrelated emotional appeal.

The question remain unanswered (and I would invite anyone to answer it). We all know that you can find things to support the ideological narrative (because that's how ideological narratives work).

What facts, if true, would get you to question the ideological narrative?

Anyone?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

If he was fleeing at the time, it wouldn't matter if he was carrying 10 knives, 8 guns, 6 baseball bats and an anvil. He was FLEEing. No need to shoot the dude IN THE BACK.

2 Replies

@Mame,

Let me try this again Mame. If he was not actually "fleeing" at the time he was shot, would you change your opinion?

The question I am asking is whether there Is there anything that would cause you to question the narrative of your ideological bubble? You keep on doubling down with reasons you shouldn't question your preconceived beliefs.

I guess that settles it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Let me try this again Mame. If he was not actually "fleeing" at the time he was shot, would you change your opinion?

All I know is, if he were not FLEEING, he wouldn't have been shot in the back. Anyone who is FLEEING is not a danger to the people he is FLEEING from, so no need for gunfire. And why don't they just shoot people in the legs? Why KILL?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

2 Replies

@Mame,

No, You don't know this. You are making it up. You have an ideological narrative that you want to be true. You are inventing any facts necessary to fit the narrative.

It is not even logically true that anyone who is shot in the back is fleeing. The verb "to flee" means to be in the process of running away. There are all sorts of reasons that someone would have their back turned when they were running away. For example, if he was reaching for a weapon... he was in the process to turn towards the police, or if he was threatening something else.

Have you bothered to read the resport?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I ask again...

If the facts say that he wasn't fleeing (as you claim)... would that change your opinion?

This thread is about the inability for people on the left to question a political narrative in spite of the facts. In my opinion, this case is a perfectly good example where the facts don't fit the narrative. But I would invite Mame or anyone else to provide ANY example where they are able to question the ideological narrative.

Another example would be interesting. I think that people here will line up unquestioning in their ideological camp no matter what the issue is.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You seems to have a real problem with dealing with situations as they are an wish us to address those situations to made the use of deadly force more understandable.

Sorry the man shoot in the back was fleeing not attacking and the gentleman with the knee on his throat, that end in his death, was not resisting nor the cases where the police officers used a gun and not a taser by error was not call for.

Chasing very young black males playing with toy guns and then killing them is not OK either noting that such deadly force is not normally used again white children.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Are there any of these cases where you see facts that don't match this narrow idologocal narrative?

That's the question I am raising?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Are there any of these cases where you see facts that don't match this narrow idologocal narrative?

That's the question I am raising?

The sad narrative of police turning to deadly force faster with blacks then others groups is that had been happening since at least the end of the civil war to this very day? Is that the narrative?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Bingo!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If Black Lives Matter is going to take a knee-jerk political position on every shooting no matter what the facts say, it seems they lose credibility.

BLM's goal is to prevent police officers from lawfully using force against black criminals.

This is a case of police lawfully using force against a black criminal.

BLM's opposition to the police in this case is perfectly aligned with BLM's goal.

maxdancona wrote:

There are plenty of cases where the police were clearly in the wrong. This isn't one of them.

BLM is all about opposing the police when the police are in the right.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am not supporting longjon's position. I find many of his comments, including this one, to be irrational and blatantly racist.

Funny how you cannot point out any such traits in his posts.

maxdancona wrote:

My position is that there is a real problem with systemic racism in policing that needs to be addressed.

Your position is completely different from the position of BLM.

maxdancona wrote:

Saying that any police shooting is murder is just as extreme as saying no shooting is.

BLM are a bunch of extremist nutcases.

maxdancona wrote:

Black Lives Matter loses credibility when they are unable to make this distinction based on the facts,

That distinction is unimportant to them, because it is the lawful and justified shootings that BLM want to oppose.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

You are an argumentative, pedantic human being, max.

Max's intelligent arguments are welcome here.

Your ignorance and childish name-calling are not.

0 Replies

When Black Lives Matter goes too far. The case of Jacob Blake.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know