Comments by "EvilGuacamoleGaming" (@EvilGuacamoleGaming) on "Nate The Lawyer"
channel.
-
8
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@jpara617 Checking the details it seems only the cops say he had a knife. There was one in the van, yes, but I haven't heard if it is even of reasonable size. It's worth noting that while true it's not like they were just random kids. It was their kids. There was a restraining order against him in regards to the woman, not the children, which leads me to believe they shared custody to some degree. Now, what you mentioned 'what if it was your kid' etc. etc., that's an interesting, though irrelevant question. Because it wasn't the cop's kids in this situation. If she had fired a clip into his back it could be different. Impassioned because of a desire to protect and no training, yes, I could entertain that being justified (it would need to be proven, of course). But an officer is supposed to be without passion- they are supposed to just uphold the law. They responsibility is to bring those who are accused of breaking the law in so that the court can judge the validity of the accusation. You fail if you kill the accused. At any rate, I think if you pull out a gun around a child you are endangering that child. There is no reason to think the children were in danger. They were his kids and nothing about him gives the indication that he would harm them. He might take them some place but like... unless you have extensive money and connections you can't just disappear with your kids. They'd find him and the kids within a few days. Well, this assumes that they'd care if some Black kids were potentially kidnapped...
2
-
@arcanstonehide1429 Seemed I missed this. I'll start with the most obvious point which is this: 10 seconds of video demonstrates everything we must know. Blake casually, slowly walks around the van followed by two officers who are doing really nothing other than pointing a taser at him (I heard two taser attempts failed so I'm not sure why he is pointing it at him, since it could not have been reloaded in that time... unless cops carry multiple tasers?). His hands are clearly empty and swing freely. Nothing is preventing the officers from stopping Blake during the casual stroll towards the driver's seat. Nothing is preventing the officers from preventing him from accessing whatever might be inside the minivan. This isn't split second, this is more than enough time to see what is happening. It should be noted that once the door is opened the first officer has control from grabbing the shirt. He is flanked by the other officer. There is no reason to believe that, at that point, he couldn't be wrestled under control. He never enters the vehicle; he could not have retrieved anything even if that was his intent. Even if he retrieved anything his position was facing away and leaning down; at most he could have leaped into the vehicle but that would make him able to control the vehicle or give him any advantage if he wanted to attack.
To put it simpler- he was not shot because he was a danger. The police clearly do not treat him as a threat nor could he be assessed as a threat. He was shot because for not submitting. Either that or he was shot because the officer is terrible at his job and was afraid of an unarmed Black man. No detail outside of that can change the failure of the officers to resolve the situation without deadly force.
As for your other points: yes, he was accused of sexual assault by the woman who called 911. She is the woman who is the mother of his children who were in the van. The accusation was 3rd degree, which means it carried no use of violence or coercion; not that it should be taken lightly in that regard, but this isn't a person with a violent history or even the accusation of violence. Given that there is no mention of the restraining order applying to the children I must assume there was some form of joint custody. It appears that his only intention was to get the children which he may have had the right to do. As for the warrant, yes, there was a warrant for his arrest. It was issued over a month prior. The police were clearly not that interested in serving the warrant and, as is evident in everything else, did not consider him much of a threat or concern. It should be at least considered, since he was only accused at this point, that there is some possibility that the accusation was fraudulent for the sake of securing custody. I do not find that likely, but custody battles can get brutal and it's one of the few times women might lie about sexual assault. The 911 call indicated that he had taken the van keys but I've seen nothing to indicate who actually owned the van. It would not be surprising if she was not sole owner of the van considering they had multiple children together and must have cohabitated for some time. I've seen nothing discussing the nature of custody between the two- if he was picking up for his turn for custody he may have essentially been like 'we bought this van together and I do not have a car that can carry the kids safely. I need the van'. This is entirely speculation but it's as much speculation as the idea that he was car thief and kidnapper.
The time to 'ask nicely' would have been (as is the case for many people) letting a person know that there was a warrant and telling them they needed to surrender themselves so they can give a verdict and deal with bail if need be. Regardless, they were mousy until they had a moment they could justify using deadly force. Further, you don't get to play Schrödinger's waist band. Literally ANYONE could be hiding a weapon and have intention to kill you. This is why cowards should not be allowed to be cops. Power should not be given to those consumed with fear.
Anyway, the idea that this guy was on a mission besides just 'spend time with my kids' is honestly just crazy to me. He didn't walk like someone on a mission. Him fighting back when people assault him is called human nature. And nobody thinks 'oh boy, maybe I'll be a martyr!' other than the mentally unstable. The ten seconds of video says everything. Unless he demonstrated a super human ability to defeat multiple officers at once nothing that happened before matters.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@TheJaybrone Yes. Nate put it that there are two concepts to be considered. At the time of the shooting did A) he pose a serious threat and B) did the officer have a reasonable response. We can know from the video he neither posed a threat nor was considered one. He was walking casually around the van. The officers were casually strolling behind him. We know he didn't have a weapon. I'll give that in the ten seconds of video maybe we don't have it established that the officers knew he didn't have a weapon but we know from the rest of the video they knew. While we see a taser pointed at Blake I think it's pretty easy to say if there was any real urgency and threat in their mind there would be far more than a taser and a slow follow. It demonstrates clearly the state of mind of the officers- frustration at someone they want to submit but who is not submitting. It demonstrates clearly they do not view him as a danger or threat to anyone. This is the best case scenario for the police motive; the police being so irresponsible as to not handle what should have been a threat when it could have been done with little harm then, when maybe faced with evidence of a threat, failed to use obvious, expected methods to neutralize the threat non-lethally in favor of lethal methods. If that's not the case, the only other possibility is that he was allowed to leave until there could be some sort of plausible excuse for using lethal force. That is to say, first degree murder. Anyway, as for 'reasonable response', I do not feel the use of lethal force can be justified because an officer failed to use the non-lethal force at their disposal. The police should, if they must exist at all, use lethal force only when doing so is the only way to prevent other loss of life and can be done without contributing to loss of life. Firing a gun around children when simply tackling the person in question is not only possible but easy and should be in the police skill set is not reasonable.
In short, yes, I watched the video. Yes, the 10 seconds is all that is needed to be seen (with the exception that it doesn't establish that the officers knew he didn't have weapon; we do, however, know they knew that).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the key problem. I reject that those two cases are good standards for police action. I don't think if an officer feels like they are in danger that this is a reasonable standard to use violence. Particularly because it is easy for police to invoke danger. We know how police operate- they do not listen. This guy just finished breaking up a fight and his reward is harassment. He knows full well that his life could be forfeit at any moment because the police have made that clear for... well, the entire time they have existed and double down on the idea that police don't care if everyone sees that they are violent and unreasonable. As such, the officer's safety is not something I believe is reasonable to be concerned with. If they dislike that they are putting their life on the line to serve as an officer then they can quit. When their job becomes more dangerous than trash collection we can talk again. To put this all to a finer point- (tl;dr) I don't want to give an out to violence instigated and continued and exacerbated by police by giving them a 'I'm scared' standard.
To extend this point- the only reason why Jacob Blake got to the point where an officer might think that he is dangerous is because of the dangerous, ignorant actions of the police themselves. It is essentially like entrapment.
Anywho, I'll state that I think this is good case to bring this about race. I think if he was white he would have been given leniency to get in his car. I think if he was white he would have been listened to when the cops arrived. If he was white he wouldn't have acted in as much fear- with good reason, white people have less to fear from police. Hell, it's likely that the initial response of police- how quick, what they expected to see, how they viewed everyone involved as dangerous- that was all institutional racism. I mean, I don't know everything here but was this a Black neighborhood? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if what cops were assigned to the neighborhood represents a systemic problem itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@superpsyched5624 what you are suggesting would require him to have, in front of the people in the store, take this drug. Something that didn't happen. He must have, well before that, taken a normal dose. The unbiased autopsy did not suggest that he was under enough to cause adverse health effects under normal conditions. At most we are talking about a complicating medical factor. It's no different than if he had a heart condition or asthma and it made choking him to death easier. To put it simply, the whole drug thing is red herring to make Floyd's murder just a coincidence and ultimately his own fault.
I don't know what was going through his mind when he killed Floyd. I do know what should have been, 'My God, this man is dying, crying for help. I should help him!' It is not only the obvious, human thing to do it was also his duty. But I don't really care how 'racist' he is; his mind is not a place I need to give a damn about, in all honesty. I care that he was trained to do a job in a way that furthered white supremacy. He was trained not to feel compassion for Black people. Trained to see anyone under any suspicion as an 'enemy'. I know we have a society that leads Black people to have little choice other than to sell drugs or be consumed by them. Where your success in life is more determined by your zip code than any quality you possess. I don't care about a police officer being racist. I care about how police departments encourage racism, ignore the infiltration by white nationalist groups and push out anyone who complains.
1
-
@superpsyched5624 There is no way he could be convicted of 1st degree because he never sought to kill Floyd. It would be extremely wild and unreasonable take that he wanted him to die. Even if true it is impossible to know and no evidence supports that. 2nd degree is the correct charge. Though I believe all four officers are equally culpable. A knee to the neck itself might not kill a person, even over an extended time. It could, for someone who was putting up an incredible fight be needed (or at least argued as such). The difference is easy to identify however. Floyd was not a healthy teen, he was not a trained fighter, he didn't put up a struggle. He clearly identified his distress and need for help. The police not only did not provide this it can be recognized that they prevented any help from getting to him. He could not leave, nobody who might have been trained could get to him and the presence of police makes people assume an authority has control over the situation (thus, people would not call 911- we expect the police to know if someone needs medical attention). As such, they all functioned the same- as someone who was given authority over life and death of a person and ignored his needs as he died and prevented any possible scenario that could have saved his life, including any attempt of his own. Effectively, this is the scenario: you are the lifeguard at the pool. Someone is running around the pool which is against the rules so you throw them into the pool. You then see that they are drowning; they say so as they struggle. You tell everyone, including anyone else trained or with floating objects, to stay back. Three other lifeguards look on without doing anything. The person drowns. This is murder. Maybe we can go 'they were running around a pool, certainly they'd fall in eventually' and 'if they did, without the lifeguard they'd have died anyway, maybe' and 'he couldn't know if he was faking drowning or not'. Sure. But none of those questions change the issue. Interestingly, we can include the racial aspect here as well. If the drowned person is Black we know that Black people have systemically been denied access to pools and ways to learn how to swim. If the pool in question was owned by someone who's owned it for 50 years (a little long, but a parent may have) we're talking about a pool that likely once denied access to Blacks- something that such an owner might wish was still true, and something that might be taught to their children. If that's the case the lifeguards might be selected among those of similar disdain for Black people. Now, with pools this continued oppression isn't that strong (at least on the owner side); 'lifeguarding tradition' is hard to maintain when most people are a lifeguard for one or two years. Police tradition is strongly upheld, however. At any rate, I would say that all the lifeguards are guilty of murder.
As for the other point, I've seen enough white people be like 'there was this white person killed by police' and still come to the conclusion that the police aren't a problem to feel pretty secure in the point I made. I mean, it is true that white people are often just not that interested in hearing about injustice done to white people by police. Most white people I personally associate are supportive of BLM and many are on the ground activists so I'm really talking about what I've seen online and the effect in our society.
1
-
1