Its a chit show. Lots of diversity in the leadership of the prosecution. Struggling to work the audio-visual equipment, and making reference to the stupidest of chit picked out of the videos. Hard to believe this baffoon has these cops' lives in his hands. I pray the cops both land level headed jurys to see through this BS.
They should be charged with derelict of duty. Letin' one negro whop both of them. I would have shot him several times on the ground. But in reality why he wasn't handcuffed as soon as he got out of the car?
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
You fight with 2 cops, take a taser, take off running and turn to shoot, well then you get what you get. Play stupid games and suffer stupid results. The shooting cop had no idea if the drunk had stolen the other officer's Glock or not. He probably couldn't tell in that split second that it was 100% for sure just the taser. The drunk turned and the cop's instinct was to protect himself and those around him.
Did the taser have another cartridge in it after he fired the first cartridge? You know the answer
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
It's time for mass resignations of Atlanta cops. Who would even think about working for a department that hangs its people out to dry like that? Good luck recruiting replacements, also! Jerry
Did the taser have another cartridge in it after he fired the first cartridge? You know the answer
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
What is the effective range while firing over your shoulder when running away?
Like I said, I'm not taking the puke's side. Just observing what may not have resulted in the cops being charged with murder, and ruining their own lives. He just wasn't worth it.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
I couldn't disagree more. The perp committed several hostile acts with hostile intent. Had he shot the taser then surrendered and got shot... sure. But he didn't. What are the cops supposed to do, wait until he gets his hands on another weapon before they engage him? Or wait until he starts hurting someone else?
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
What is the effective range while firing over your shoulder when running away?
Like I said, I'm not taking the puke's side. Just observing what may not have resulted in the cops being charged with murder, and ruining their own lives. He just wasn't worth it.
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
What is the effective range while firing over your shoulder when running away?
Like I said, I'm not taking the puke's side. Just observing what may not have resulted in the cops being charged with murder, and ruining their own lives. He just wasn't worth it.
At some point, you have to be smarter than them.
Get fugking real.
What would you have done?
I'll tell you what I would have done...
NOT have been employed by a police dept. in a liberal city where "they" control the local govt., the police department, and the DA's office.
Wonder if some cops in some cities will start getting a clue about that?
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
Your attitude is why we have this problem. The perps constantly are fine while the cops are the bad guys. Insanity!
He deserved to be shot, 100 percent. I grew up in Atlanta, if, when I was a wild 19 year old, I had gotten into a fistfight over a DUI, and I had grabbed a police tazer, I would have been shot dead, and I would have gotten zero sympathy. My family would have been ashamed of me.
This poor cop is supposed to be tried "by a jury of his peers." Good luck with that. What kind of jury do you think he will get today in Fulton County?
DA Paul Howard is reverting to his "Roots." Just like back in his homeland of South Africa, he is leading the lynch mob. He will want to put an automobile tire around the cop's neck, pour in two quarts of gasoline and light him up. Necklacing.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
The ACLU describes the use of a taser as "deadly force".
Its a chit show. Lots of diversity in the leadership of the prosecution. Struggling to work the audio-visual equipment, and making reference to the stupidest of chit picked out of the videos. Hard to believe this baffoon has these cops' lives in his hands. I pray the cops both land level headed jurys to see through this BS.
I was thinking the same while listening “so um uh” he sounded like a baboon trying its damndest to sound intelligent and like a “legal mind” I like the part about “in Atlanta it’s illegal to even shoot a taser at a running suspect” probably not if he’s shooting one at you while running. The bro was going to get whitey and just like any good banana republic it was just a matter of bending/making up charges and then charging the cop that was their and didn’t do a thing unless he agreed to play along and turn on the other cop.
The officer will never get a fair trial as it’s guaranteed to be filled with blacks who will automatically vote to convict regardless of evidence.
Yet these dumb white blm kids can’t figure out who the racist are and they blacks will stickup for blacks every single time over whitey.
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
Another clueless and racist social justice warrior who chooses to live where there are no black people. Just another Dem closeted KKK member
A taser gun makes a POP like any other gun does, and who's to say if the officers knew the fighting resisting chemically impaired suspect was using a taser gun or not? If you're fighting and resisting and point your finger at the police and they think you have a gun and they kill you dead, you deserve it and the police shouldn't face any charges.
I can't figure the attitude that people have these days where they think police should be able to subdue a chemically impaired suspect and cuff him with one hand and not get the suspect's clothes dirty or wrinkled. They need to have a free hand to escalate to the level of force necessary to subdue the suspect even if that means cracking their head with a stick or using half a magazine of lead. If you can get arrested calmly and sit in car and not get beat on or shot, why wouldn't you comply and do that? Anybody with common sense would
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
I said all this the other day... Also what about all the innocent bystanders that bullets were being sprayed at... Two different occupied vehicles took rounds... Go team blue!!
I've been reading your posts and I'm curious. Are you for real in your sentiments or are you being the devil's advocate just to stir up discussion?
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
Ah yes.
Shooting someone in the back as retaliation.
Perhaps you can find a state statute that allows that?
I guess a lot of folks have seen too many movies where the bad guy runs out of ammo, so to be " fair " John Wayne throws his gun aside and starts fist fighting with the bad guy.
This guy that got shot brought ALL of this mess on. The cops weren't riding around looking for someone to shoot. Don't fight with the police and you likely won't get shot. Don't run away and shoot anything over your shoulder and likely as not you won't get any bullets in your back
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
Ah yes.
Shooting someone in the back as retaliation.
Perhaps you can find a state statute that allows that?
So reaction is faster than action now and a mind reader to boot? You should go teach somewhere now you're an internet expert.
I said all this the other day... Also what about all the innocent bystanders that bullets were being sprayed at... Two different occupied vehicles took rounds... Go team blue!!
I've been reading your posts and I'm curious. Are you for real in your sentiments or are you being the devil's advocate just to stir up discussion?
Im independent... i dont need to follow team A or B...
Im for real, most of the time.... ;-)
I think the dead guy should have been dead when he was fighting.... once he got away I think the cops lost the game of cops and robbers that night.
Its the same as high speed pursuits, they stop most times as they are endangering innocent lives.... well, running, waving a handgun and discharging it in an occupied parking lot, striking two occupied vehicles screams “RETARD”...
They shot him in the back.... you nor I could shoot someone flee’ing in the back.
The United States is one of the only places with militarized police departments, our crime rate isnt any lower than other civilized countries....
"are crime rates". LMAO Go get you GED left wind social justice warrior.
Originally Posted by Ejp1234
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by Ejp1234
I said all this the other day... Also what about all the innocent bystanders that bullets were being sprayed at... Two different occupied vehicles took rounds... Go team blue!!
I've been reading your posts and I'm curious. Are you for real in your sentiments or are you being the devil's advocate just to stir up discussion?
Im independent... i dont need to follow team A or B...
Im for real, most of the time.... ;-)
I think the dead guy should have been dead when he was fighting.... once he got away I think the cops lost the game of cops and robbers that night.
Its the same as high speed pursuits, they stop most times as they are endangering innocent lives.... well, running, waving a handgun and discharging it in an occupied parking lot, striking two occupied vehicles screams “RETARD”...
They shot him in the back.... you nor I could shoot someone flee’ing in the back.
The United States is one of the only places with militarized police departments, are crime rate isnt any lower than other civilized countries....
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
Yup. Plus he kicks the dying man when he is shot and on the ground and then fails to render aid.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
Ah yes.
Shooting someone in the back as retaliation.
Perhaps you can find a state statute that allows that?
So reaction is faster than action now and a mind reader to boot? You should go teach somewhere now you're an internet expert.
"are crime rates". LMAO Go get you GED left wind social justice warrior.
Originally Posted by Ejp1234
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by Ejp1234
I said all this the other day... Also what about all the innocent bystanders that bullets were being sprayed at... Two different occupied vehicles took rounds... Go team blue!!
I've been reading your posts and I'm curious. Are you for real in your sentiments or are you being the devil's advocate just to stir up discussion?
Im independent... i dont need to follow team A or B...
Im for real, most of the time.... ;-)
I think the dead guy should have been dead when he was fighting.... once he got away I think the cops lost the game of cops and robbers that night.
Its the same as high speed pursuits, they stop most times as they are endangering innocent lives.... well, running, waving a handgun and discharging it in an occupied parking lot, striking two occupied vehicles screams “RETARD”...
They shot him in the back.... you nor I could shoot someone flee’ing in the back.
The United States is one of the only places with militarized police departments, are crime rate isnt any lower than other civilized countries....
Holly jeeebuses, the whiny BHA dude... posting IM’s that dont involve him. Pointing out a typo... LMAO...
Ex-federalé - I work with you homo’s all the time at DHS... anti lib’s, but federal employees retiring and sucking the govt tits for the rest of your lives mooching on the tax payers.... hypocrite if I ever seen one!!
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
Ah yes.
Shooting someone in the back as retaliation.
Perhaps you can find a state statute that allows that?
Where did I say it was out of retaliation? I didn't. The perp was a clear and present danger. He established that through several hostile acts.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
Ah yes.
Shooting someone in the back as retaliation.
Perhaps you can find a state statute that allows that?
Where did I say it was out of retaliation? I didn't. The perp was a clear and present danger. He established that through several hostile acts.
Holly jeeebuses, the whiny BHA dude... posting IM’s that dont involve him.
BHA deserves every ounce of exposure of what they really are.
Sniffle sniffle buddy....
Don't cry because you don't even know the correct usage of "are". Everyone on here thinks you're super smart social justice warrior who doesn't even hunt or fish and wants to ban firearms and welcome your trolling.
On March 15,2003 Marquise Hudspeth was chased several miles by Shreveport Louisiana police and he got out of his vehicle in a "shooting stance" pointing a shiny cell phone at officers who then shot and killed him. No criminal charges were filed against the officers. They were found to have acted appropriately.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
Do you know for a fact that there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire? Could it possibly be that the cop knew his target, what was in front / behind it and decided it was safe to engage?
Holly jeeebuses, the whiny BHA dude... posting IM’s that dont involve him.
BHA deserves every ounce of exposure of what they really are.
we
Sniffle sniffle buddy....
Don't cry because you don't even know the correct usage of "are". Everyone on here thinks you're super smart social justice warrior who doesn't even hunt or fish and wants to ban firearms and welcome your trolling.
You’re “A” super smart... then the comma after warrior... and wow, thats one hell of a run on sentence!!
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
Do you know for a fact that there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire? Could it possibly be that the cop knew his target, what was in front / behind it and decided it was safe to engage?
Uummm yes... as noted, two of the vehicles with bullet holes in them were occupied with drivers in the seat....
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
Ah yes.
Shooting someone in the back as retaliation.
Perhaps you can find a state statute that allows that?
Where did I say it was out of retaliation? I didn't. The perp was a clear and present danger. He established that through several hostile acts.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
Do you know for a fact that there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire? Could it possibly be that the cop knew his target, what was in front / behind it and decided it was safe to engage?
Uummm yes... as noted, two of the vehicles with bullet holes in them were occupied with drivers in the seat....
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
Do you know for a fact that there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire? Could it possibly be that the cop knew his target, what was in front / behind it and decided it was safe to engage?
Uummm yes... as noted, two of the vehicles with bullet holes in them were occupied with drivers in the seat....
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
Do you know for a fact that there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire? Could it possibly be that the cop knew his target, what was in front / behind it and decided it was safe to engage?
Uummm yes... as noted, two of the vehicles with bullet holes in them were occupied with drivers in the seat....
Did the occupants get shot?
Hence why he didnt get charged with their murder brainiac, but he did receive charges for doing exactly what I stated...
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
Do you know for a fact that there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire? Could it possibly be that the cop knew his target, what was in front / behind it and decided it was safe to engage?
Uummm yes... as noted, two of the vehicles with bullet holes in them were occupied with drivers in the seat....
He does seem like your type, did you meet him at the fellow [bleep] fly fishing meetup?
Holly jeeebuses, the whiny BHA dude... posting IM’s that dont involve him.
BHA deserves every ounce of exposure of what they really are.
Sniffle sniffle buddy....
Don't cry because you don't even know the correct usage of "are". Everyone on here thinks you're super smart social justice warrior who doesn't even hunt or fish and wants to ban firearms and welcome your trolling.
A taser gun makes a POP like any other gun does, and who's to say if the officers knew the fighting resisting chemically impaired suspect was using a taser gun or not? If you're fighting and resisting and point your finger at the police and they think you have a gun and they kill you dead, you deserve it and the police shouldn't face any charges.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
He left his car and his wallet. A call to his probation officer, and he wouldn't have been hard to find.
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
And what if the cops way off running shots were just a hair higher on either of the two occupied vehicles and killed one or both of the innocent bystanders?
Do you know for a fact that there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire? Could it possibly be that the cop knew his target, what was in front / behind it and decided it was safe to engage?
Uummm yes... as noted, two of the vehicles with bullet holes in them were occupied with drivers in the seat....
Did the occupants get shot?
Hence why he didnt get charged with their murder brainiac, but he did receive charges for doing exactly what I stated...
Yeah.. and we're debating the merits of the charges you fuggin idiot.
A taser gun makes a POP like any other gun does, and who's to say if the officers knew the fighting resisting chemically impaired suspect was using a taser gun or not? If you're fighting and resisting and point your finger at the police and they think you have a gun and they kill you dead, you deserve it and the police shouldn't face any charges.
I haven't seen to many bright yellow Glocks.
Doesn't matter when you've heard a loud report. They sell pink and purple and every color of gun you can think of these days Don't fight with the cops or point gun shaped things at them and you most likely won't get shot Just a common sense thing
Police officer sacrificed to BLM. Did anyone expect anything different. Easier to charge, than to put out the fires. Kick the can down the road. Maybe it will be cold and rainy when he is acquitted. Hasbeen
A taser gun makes a POP like any other gun does, and who's to say if the officers knew the fighting resisting chemically impaired suspect was using a taser gun or not? If you're fighting and resisting and point your finger at the police and they think you have a gun and they kill you dead, you deserve it and the police shouldn't face any charges.
I haven't seen to many bright yellow Glocks.
Doesn't matter when you've heard a loud report. They sell pink and purple and every color of gun you can think of these days Don't fight with the cops or point gun shaped things at them and you most likely won't get shot Just a common sense thing
There is a reason Tasers are bright yellow. Common sense isn't so common any more.
A taser gun makes a POP like any other gun does, and who's to say if the officers knew the fighting resisting chemically impaired suspect was using a taser gun or not? If you're fighting and resisting and point your finger at the police and they think you have a gun and they kill you dead, you deserve it and the police shouldn't face any charges.
I haven't seen to many bright yellow Glocks.
Doesn't matter when you've heard a loud report. They sell pink and purple and every color of gun you can think of these days Don't fight with the cops or point gun shaped things at them and you most likely won't get shot Just a common sense thing
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
These pos lefty prosecutors want to carve split-seconds into 25 pieces.
He coulda been legally made daid when he was on the ground.
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
You can repair a couple bullet holes in a car. Might not be able to repair the damage done by a hostile actor who's clearly demonstrated he's willing to inflict severe bodily harm or use deadly force if necessary to avoid capture.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
If I was a police officer I'd hand in my badge! Why take a change being sacrificed for a political agenda. What are we going to do when there are no cops? Recruiting new officers will be next to impossible. LAST WEEK THIS SAME DA STATED THAT A TASER WAS A DEADLY WEAPON UNDER GEORGIA LAW WHEN IT WAS USED BY POLICE AGAINST PROTESTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Moden day political lynching!
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
You can repair a couple bullet holes in a car. Might not be able to repair the damage done by a hostile actor who's clearly demonstrated he's willing to inflict severe bodily harm or use deadly force if necessary to avoid capture.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by Ejp1234
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
You can repair a couple bullet holes in a car. Might not be able to repair the damage done by a hostile actor who's clearly demonstrated he's willing to inflict severe bodily harm or use deadly force if necessary to avoid capture.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
Congrats, your the daily winner of the dumbass post of the day award!!!
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
You can repair a couple bullet holes in a car. Might not be able to repair the damage done by a hostile actor who's clearly demonstrated he's willing to inflict severe bodily harm or use deadly force if necessary to avoid capture.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by Ejp1234
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
You can repair a couple bullet holes in a car. Might not be able to repair the damage done by a hostile actor who's clearly demonstrated he's willing to inflict severe bodily harm or use deadly force if necessary to avoid capture.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
Congrats, your the daily winner of the dumbass post of the day award!!!
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
Except that running away thing.
Assuming you've ever laid with a woman, would you say 'Gee, the guy that just raped my 7 year old daughter is running away, so I'll let him go"
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
Except that running away thing.
Egressing in a fight doesn't mean you're not continuing the fight. Why would you think it does?
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
Taser already fired. Imminent threat no more. Chitty deal - but it's just that simple.
All this sounds SJW logic... makes you wonder why we have armed guards manning prison perimeters. If a convict with a history of violence hops a fence and has time to outrun pursuers, should we just let him go?
What is the effective range while firing over your shoulder when running away?
Like I said, I'm not taking the puke's side. Just observing what may not have resulted in the cops being charged with murder, and ruining their own lives. He just wasn't worth it.
At some point, you have to be smarter than them.
Get fugking real.
Agree with rockinbbar. Thanks for your input Flave.
What about the charges he caught for striking the vehicles that werent involved? Dont be parked near an armed cop and you likely wont get shot? LMAO...
What about standing ON the dead body? Why do you stand ON a dead body after you’ve confirmed the guy is DEAD?
Dude made some dodo moves, brought on by the drunken dodo... drunken dodo shoulda been contained much sooner, but officer dodo lost control, then placed everyone in danger with his horrible muzzle control.
The perp was still in the fight. He gave no reason to believe otherwise.
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
Your attitude is why we have this problem. The perps constantly are fine while the cops are the bad guys. Insanity!
Assuming you've ever laid with a woman, would you say 'Gee, the guy that just raped my 7 year old daughter is running away, so I'll let him go"
You catch a guy raping, or about to rape your daughter... Justifiable Homicide.
Running away afterwards?
I guess you can spin the wheel and see what you come up with in the way of prosecution.
Some states have a "fleeing felon" clause in use of deadly force. But the question of "conviction" arises. It does tend to get the inmates attention in the prison system though, after they have been convicted.
The man was unarmed other than the taser he swiped from the cop. He apparently tried to tase the cop and, while this may piss the cop off, it does not justify shooting the man twice in the back as he fled.
Remember he had been searched and found to be unarmed.
Another clueless and racist social justice warrior who chooses to live where there are no black people. Just another Dem closeted KKK member
No, n i g g e r s just don't like so much rain. OregonCoot is a GoodGuy. Why be such a dick?
And as he evaded the cops... if he car jacked your wife / kid / parent, etc, got into a wreck that killed them, how would you feel then? I'm sure you'd still be cool with it... after all he ran out of taser boolits so obviously we have to totally discount everything he had done up until that point.
Ah yes.
Shooting someone in the back as retaliation.
Perhaps you can find a state statute that allows that?
Yah. Back shooting is stuff heros are made of. Said nobody ever.
I guess a lot of folks have seen too many movies where the bad guy runs out of ammo, so to be " fair " John Wayne throws his gun aside and starts fist fighting with the bad guy.
This guy that got shot brought ALL of this mess on. The cops weren't riding around looking for someone to shoot. Don't fight with the police and you likely won't get shot. Don't run away and shoot anything over your shoulder and likely as not you won't get any bullets in your back
He brought it on. However, he'd been searched, it was a taser, he wasn't a threat running away... Simple. 11 charges? Ridiculous.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat. This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
Taser already fired. Imminent threat no more. Chitty deal - but it's just that simple.
Just that simple as we sit comfortably typing. Maybe a little different if you were in the middle of it from the cop's perspective. I don't demand perfection from someone who was just wrestling the suspect only moments before the taser was fired at the cop in pursuit. That situation on the ground got both those cops' adrenaline going for sure. They are human, not machines. I'm sure some veteran cops are better at handling that kind of situation, but you can't expect every cop to be perfect under split second duress.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
Taser already fired. Imminent threat no more. Chitty deal - but it's just that simple.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
Taser already fired. Imminent threat no more. Chitty deal - but it's just that simple.
Yet another informed opinion.
Instead of constantly playing the know-it-all critic, why don't you put your bonafides on the line and make a meaningful contribution. That, or shut the [bleep] up.
I've never had to deal with what cops deal with, but when I was in the military I had several situations where I had to make a quick decision whether to fire my weapon at someone (once, after being hit in the melon with a rock). Anyone who thinks you can make a calm and deliberative decision whether your life is truly at risk is a much better person than I am/was. I don't give a flying fugg if the taser is properly considered a deadly weapon (and if you listen to the left, they've always said that it is a deadly weapon, before this incident), but if you're engaged and you have someone fighting you who fires ANYTHING in your direction, you have a very small window of time to decide whether you need to defend yourself.
I don't think that cop was going to shoot until he was first shot at. It's easy to know in retrospect that the guy was shooting a taser, but in the heat of the moment I suspect the cop had no certainty what had just been fired at him and certainly had no idea if the search for weapons on the guy was as thorough as it should have been. Again, I have never been a cop, but I suspect a cop who finds a guy asleep in a car isn't as exhaustive as a cop who subdues a violent suspect. So the cop reacted the way I would have...you take a shot at me with anything, I'll defend myself. The guy shouldn't have fought the cops, shouldn't have grabbed the taser, shouldn't have run and shouldn't have shot at the cop. The cop was right to assume that he was dealing with a dangerous person who needed to be stopped.
The film I saw showed a flash from the end of the taser. Since I wasn't on the scene or directly involved on the scene, I can't say what the officer might have thought when he heard the pop and saw the flash. I would probably think that he had just shot at me and I'm properly trained to return fire and not wait until this guy that just got through knocking a uniformed officer to the ground turns and gives an optimum " fair " shot.
I won't ever make excuses for an obvious criminal that holds such disregard for duly authorized law enforcement. He didn't struggle until it cut through the brain fog that he WAS going to jail and he felt that handcuff
Don't resist arrest and fight and you likely won't get killed
CONNECTICUT: Legal for Law Enforcement. Legal w/ restrictions for civilians Connecticut Criminal Law Title 53 – Crimes, Title 53a – Penal Code, title 54 Criminal Procedure, Chapter 950 Section 53a-3 Definitions: (20) “Electronic defense weapon” means a weapon which by electronic impulse or current is capable of immobilizing a person temporarily, but is not capable of inflicting death or serious injury. §53-206. Carrying and sale of dangerous weapons (a) Any person who carries upon his person... electronic defense weapon, as defined in 53a-3, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, unless such person has been granted a written permit issued and signed by the first selectman of a town, the mayor or chief of police of a city or the warden of a borough, authoring such person to carry such weapon or instrument within such city or borough, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both. No permit shall be issued to any applicant who has ever been convicted of a felony. The issuing authority may request the applicant’s finger prints and full information concerning his criminal record and make an investigation concerning his criminal record and make an investigation concerning the suitability of the applicant to carry any such weapon. Refusal of fingerprinting by the applicant shall be sufficient cause to refuse issuance of a permit. Whenever any person is found guilty of a violation of this subsection, any weapon or other implement within the provisions hereof, found upon the body of such person, shall be forfeited to the municipality wherein such person was apprehended, not withstanding any failure of the judgment of conviction to expressly impose such forfeiture. Any person who has been granted a permit to carry any martial arts weapon pursuant to this section may carry such weapon anywhere within the state. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any officer charged with the preservation of the public peace nor to any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such weapon or implements is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceable returning to his place of abode or business with such weapon or implement after the same has been repaired. (b) any person who sells to another... electronic defense weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, shall, within twenty-four hours after the deliver of such weapon or implement to the person to whom sold, give written notice of such sale or delivery, specifying the article sold and the name and address of the person to whom sold or delivered, to the chief of police of the city, the warden of the borough or the first selectman of the town, within which such weapon or implement is sold or delivered, as the case may be.
Any person who violates any provision of this subsection shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. SUMMARY: Section 53-206(a) prohibits the carrying of an AIR TASER on the person unless that person has obtained a dangerous weapons permit. However, there are no state-wide permits, only local permits – the permit is only good in that particular town and would be illegal elsewhere. Any one selling such a weapon must notify the chief of police with that information within 24 hours of the delivery. Therefore the AIR TASER can be sold and it can be kept in your place of business or home, but you cannot carry on your person without a permit which is only good within the limits of the city in which was issued.
Instead of constantly playing the know-it-all critic, why don't you put your bonafides on the line and make a meaningful contribution. That, or shut the [bleep] up.
Again.. Is a taser considered a deadly weapon? Why do many states classify it as a deadly weapon and restrict possession? Why are convicted felons, like the multi convicted violent felon Brooks, prohibited from owning a deadly weapon like a taser? Why did the prosecutor refer to the taser as a deadly weapon?
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by Tarquin
A Taser is not a deadly weapon.
Case law? That same prosecutor said last week that a taser is considered a deadly weapon. So what is it?
That depends on the prosecutor.
If tasers are deadly weapons, then anyone using one would have to meet the same criteria for using it as they would their firearm.
Let that sink in a bit....
Tasers, batons, stun guns, bean bag rounds are all classified as "Less than lethal weapons".
Doesn't mean they can't kill someone. It just means they are used in lieu of resorting to deadly force.
Which brings up another interesting question:
If you take away all the "Less that Lethal" options from the police, then the problem is going to get worse, rather than better.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat. This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
Taser already fired. Imminent threat no more. Chitty deal - but it's just that simple.
Just that simple as we sit comfortably typing. Maybe a little different if you were in the middle of it from the cop's perspective. I don't demand perfection from someone who was just wrestling the suspect only moments before the taser was fired at the cop in pursuit. That situation on the ground got both those cops' adrenaline going for sure. They are human, not machines. I'm sure some veteran cops are better at handling that kind of situation, but you can't expect every cop to be perfect under split second duress.
Agreed, my opinion is not based upon being there. Is your's, Ribka's, Flave's? No, they're just third party opinions, we all don't have to agree here. It'd been better for all involved to not have gone down as it did.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Agreed, my opinion is not based upon being there. Is your's, Ribka's, Flave's? No, they're just third party opinions, we all don't have to agree here. It'd been better for all involved to not have gone down as it did.
Agreed, my opinion is not based upon being there. Is your's, Ribka's, Flave's? No, they're just third party opinions, we all don't have to agree here. It'd been better for all involved to not have gone down as it did.
Agreed, my opinion is not based upon being there. Is your's, Ribka's, Flave's? No, they're just third party opinions, we all don't have to agree here. It'd been better for all involved to not have gone down as it did.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Agreed, my opinion is not based upon being there. Is your's, Ribka's, Flave's? No, they're just third party opinions, we all don't have to agree here. It'd been better for all involved to not have gone down as it did.
I explained case law and police training going back to 1985 and when I was done she just shrugged and said "I don't care. They should have just let him go."
I've never had to deal with what cops deal with, but when I was in the military I had several situations where I had to make a quick decision whether to fire my weapon at someone (once, after being hit in the melon with a rock). Anyone who thinks you can make a calm and deliberative decision whether your life is truly at risk is a much better person than I am/was. I don't give a flying fugg if the taser is properly considered a deadly weapon (and if you listen to the left, they've always said that it is a deadly weapon, before this incident), but if you're engaged and you have someone fighting you who fires ANYTHING in your direction, you have a very small window of time to decide whether you need to defend yourself.
I don't think that cop was going to shoot until he was first shot at. It's easy to know in retrospect that the guy was shooting a taser, but in the heat of the moment I suspect the cop had no certainty what had just been fired at him and certainly had no idea if the search for weapons on the guy was as thorough as it should have been. Again, I have never been a cop, but I suspect a cop who finds a guy asleep in a car isn't as exhaustive as a cop who subdues a violent suspect. So the cop reacted the way I would have...you take a shot at me with anything, I'll defend myself. The guy shouldn't have fought the cops, shouldn't have grabbed the taser, shouldn't have run and shouldn't have shot at the cop. The cop was right to assume that he was dealing with a dangerous person who needed to be stopped.
Hey, he saw the chance to steal something and make a ten spot..Pursuit of happiness you know, and that civil right was trampled.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Jury of your peers? Frightening isn't it with the education level now in America. I saw an episode of "Murder She wrote" or "Matlock" so I already know this cop is guilty.
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by mohave_mauler1
Originally Posted by MadMooner
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Jury of your peers? Frightening isn't it with the education level now in America. I saw an episode of "Murder She wrote" or "Matlock" so I already know this cop is guilty.
After today's disgraceful display, one thing is solidified.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
I wont play the "what if" game. Dude got violent with cops, grabbed one of their weapons then got shot. Does running away make him suddenly not violent? The minute he turned his back he should he no longer be considered a threat?
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
Same as always. Trolling around the edges and adding one line insults and retorts with zero value.
So really. Break all this down for us, dipchit. You are the expert. More than 1 sentance. How about 2 paragraphs of non-insulting, thoughtful comment on the issue, from you. What happeend, case law that supports your stance that everyone else's opinions suck, and why the cop will be aqcuitted.
This is my first post on this entire issue so I have not even made a stance, so leavene me out of it. But prove yourself.
I have two nephews that joined the police in CA within the last 5 years. I hope, for their sake, they get into a new line of work like private security ASAP!!
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
How ever informed he or anyone else is, it has shades of Tennessee v Garner. The case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court, and is the latest ruling in regards to shooting fleeing suspects.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
The probable cause of the current case will have to be decided in a court of law to determine whether Brooks was a threat that justifies deadly force.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
I wont play the "what if" game. Dude got violent with cops, grabbed one of their weapons then got shot. Does running away make him suddenly not violent? The minute he turned his back he should he no longer be considered a threat?
A dangerous and violent multi convicted felon on parole, who was intoxicated ( Second DUI) assaulting two extremely professional police officers who are on video attempting multiple times to deescalate the situation. The stealing a police department issued "deadly weapon" , used it on one of the officers despite commands to stop.
Cop reluctantly has to stop the multi convicted violent felon, who is still in possession of an officer's "deadly weapon", before he hurts someone else. Then gives him CPR and apologizes for being forced to shoot the multi convicted intoxicated violent felon on parole. Yep the cop deserves the death penalty months before the final investigation is completed.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
I suppose that’s my point. Probably hypocritical to others ideas I may have about police, but there it is.
Keep whittling away tools until all you have is soft hand restraining then deadly force.
This is not what the same DA stated days ago when he responded to Police Officers using taser on protesters that refused to exit a car when ordered to do so. "According to Georgia law a taser is a deadly weapon" he stated when filing charges and have involved officers fired!
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
I suppose that’s my point. Probably hypocritical to others ideas I may have about police, but there it is.
Keep whittling away tools until all you have is soft hand restraining then deadly force.
Yep, a wrestling match or a gun fight. If you lose the wrestling match and the guy gets your gun you lose.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
How ever informed he or anyone else is, it has shades of Tennessee v Garner. The case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court, and is the latest ruling in regards to shooting fleeing suspects.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
The probable cause of the current case will have to be decided in a court of law to determine whether Brooks was a threat that justifies deadly force.
Thats been my point the whole time, how can he be posing physical danger, he is attempting to flee not attack.... in fact he earlier stopped attacking, to then flee, proving his intention was not to continue violence.
Its a fine line, however if they needed to shoot him, that time expired. Just like for the Military, there is rules of engagement, and when they are not followed, there can and will be severe penalties paid.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
How ever informed he or anyone else is, it has shades of Tennessee v Garner. The case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court, and is the latest ruling in regards to shooting fleeing suspects.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
The probable cause of the current case will have to be decided in a court of law to determine whether Brooks was a threat that justifies deadly force.
Garner wouldn't control this case. In 2014, the Supreme Court revisited Garner and while it didn't overrule, it distinguished the facts in finding that a cop who killed a fleeing suspect did not violate the 4th (or 8th, for some folks here) amendment. The case is Plumoff v. Rickard and the facts there are a lot closer to the Atlanta shooting than Garner's facts were. To wit, from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision...
"Near midnight on July 18, 2004, Lieutenant Joseph Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas, Police Department pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. Forthman noticed an indentation, “ ‘roughly the size of a head or a basketball’ ” in the windshield of the car. Estate of Allen v. West Memphis, 2011 WL 197426, *1 (WD Tenn., Jan. 20, 2011). He asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his driver’s license upon request and appeared nervous, Forthman asked him to step out of the car. Rather than comply with Forthman’s request, Rickard sped away.
Forthman gave chase and was soon joined by five other police cruisers driven by Sergeant Vance Plumhoff and Officers Jimmy Evans, Lance Ellis, Troy Galtelli, and John Gardner. The officers pursued Rickard east on In-terstate 40 toward Memphis, Tennessee. While on I–40, they attempted to stop Rickard using a “rolling roadblock,” id., at *2, but they were unsuccessful. The District Court described the vehicles as “swerving through traffic at high speeds,” id., at *8, and respondent does not dispute that the cars attained speeds over 100 miles per hour.[2] See Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 2:05–cv–2585 (WD Tenn.), p. 16; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 54:23–55:6. During the chase, Rickard and the officers passed more than two dozen vehicles.
Rickard eventually exited I–40 in Memphis, and shortly afterward he made “a quick right turn,” causing “contact [to] occu[r]” between his car and Evans’ cruiser. 2011 WL 197426, *3. As a result of that contact, Rickard’s car spun out into a parking lot and collided with Plumhoff’s cruiser. Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” Ibid. As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and approached Rickard’s car, and Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window. At that point, Rickard’s car “made contact with” yet another police cruiser. Ibid. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” ibid., indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building. Ibid. Rickard and Allen both died from some combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered in the crash that ended the chase. See App. 60, 76."
I'd argue that the facts are pretty close to identical until the bad guy in this case started his 100+mph getaway, but I'd also argue that a suspect who physically assaults the arresting officer, steals his taser, runs, then shoots the taser at the cop was showing a much greater threat than the guy just trying to drive off (and the fact that the cop in Plumoff fired 15 rounds over time vs 3 shots by the ATL cops shows that the ATL cops were far more restrained).
So after fighting with police and taking one of their weapons, the drunk violent felon is no longer violent or dangerous because he turned bis back to them?
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
Its not being skeert of the guy.... its not wanting to take a life when not needed... its a sacred thing. And as I pointed out previously, the charged officer missed his mark a few times by large margins sending bullets into innocent occupied vehicles missing the occupants by not far. Thats extremely reckless and causes way more harm to the public than a disorderly drunk.
Running drunk vs wildly shooting cop who misses by 10’s of feet???
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
A always good to get input from a Walmart greeter. Not enough skills to get on at Costco? Pretty funny coming from someone who pisses his diapers watching an episode of Cops.
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
A always good to get input from a Walmart greeter. Not enough skills to get on at Costco? Pretty funny coming from someone who pisses his diapers watching an episode of Cops.
Like I said Reba good thing you aren’t LEO, you don’t have the stones for it. You probably shouldn’t even own a gun.
Same as always. Trolling around the edges and adding one line insults and retorts with zero value.
So really. Break all this down for us, dipchit. You are the expert. More than 1 sentance. How about 2 paragraphs of non-insulting, thoughtful comment on the issue, from you. What happeend, case law that supports your stance that everyone else's opinions suck, and why the cop will be aqcuitted.
This is my first post on this entire issue so I have not even made a stance, so leavene me out of it. But prove yourself.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
How ever informed he or anyone else is, it has shades of Tennessee v Garner. The case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court, and is the latest ruling in regards to shooting fleeing suspects.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
The probable cause of the current case will have to be decided in a court of law to determine whether Brooks was a threat that justifies deadly force.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
How ever informed he or anyone else is, it has shades of Tennessee v Garner. The case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court, and is the latest ruling in regards to shooting fleeing suspects.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
The probable cause of the current case will have to be decided in a court of law to determine whether Brooks was a threat that justifies deadly force.
Garner wouldn't control this case. In 2014, the Supreme Court revisited Garner and while it didn't overrule, it distinguished the facts in finding that a cop who killed a fleeing suspect did not violate the 4th (or 8th, for some folks here) amendment. The case is Plumoff v. Rickard and the facts there are a lot closer to the Atlanta shooting than Garner's facts were. To wit, from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision...
"Near midnight on July 18, 2004, Lieutenant Joseph Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas, Police Department pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. Forthman noticed an indentation, “ ‘roughly the size of a head or a basketball’ ” in the windshield of the car. Estate of Allen v. West Memphis, 2011 WL 197426, *1 (WD Tenn., Jan. 20, 2011). He asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his driver’s license upon request and appeared nervous, Forthman asked him to step out of the car. Rather than comply with Forthman’s request, Rickard sped away.
Forthman gave chase and was soon joined by five other police cruisers driven by Sergeant Vance Plumhoff and Officers Jimmy Evans, Lance Ellis, Troy Galtelli, and John Gardner. The officers pursued Rickard east on In-terstate 40 toward Memphis, Tennessee. While on I–40, they attempted to stop Rickard using a “rolling roadblock,” id., at *2, but they were unsuccessful. The District Court described the vehicles as “swerving through traffic at high speeds,” id., at *8, and respondent does not dispute that the cars attained speeds over 100 miles per hour.[2] See Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 2:05–cv–2585 (WD Tenn.), p. 16; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 54:23–55:6. During the chase, Rickard and the officers passed more than two dozen vehicles.
Rickard eventually exited I–40 in Memphis, and shortly afterward he made “a quick right turn,” causing “contact [to] occu[r]” between his car and Evans’ cruiser. 2011 WL 197426, *3. As a result of that contact, Rickard’s car spun out into a parking lot and collided with Plumhoff’s cruiser. Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” Ibid. As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and approached Rickard’s car, and Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window. At that point, Rickard’s car “made contact with” yet another police cruiser. Ibid. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” ibid., indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building. Ibid. Rickard and Allen both died from some combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered in the crash that ended the chase. See App. 60, 76."
I'd argue that the facts are pretty close to identical until the bad guy in this case started his 100+mph getaway, but I'd also argue that a suspect who physically assaults the arresting officer, steals his taser, runs, then shoots the taser at the cop was showing a much greater threat than the guy just trying to drive off (and the fact that the cop in Plumoff fired 15 rounds over time vs 3 shots by the ATL cops shows that the ATL cops were far more restrained).
Garner was a civil case. It has exactly zero precedential value in this criminal prosecution. It could not be less relevant.
at this point I"m all for stop sending white cops into mixed or predominantly black neighborhoods.
If there are black cops that will go there, fine, if not, then don't police.
This is aburd
Worked in Baltimore...
Whatever anybody's opinion, cops are going to ease way back on policing blacks.
White people are going to have to adjust. Staying away from blacks is the best way. Blacks always turn the violence up when the cops back off. They're going to turn it *way* up now. They're going to be killing each other at a brand new level.
Whites would do well to steer clear of it as much as possible.
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
Its not being skeert of the guy.... its not wanting to take a life when not needed... its a sacred thing. And as I pointed out previously, the charged officer missed his mark a few times by large margins sending bullets into innocent occupied vehicles missing the occupants by not far. Thats extremely reckless and causes way more harm to the public than a disorderly drunk.
Running drunk vs wildly shooting cop who misses by 10’s of feet???
Have you ever prosecuted a criminal in court in the US?
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by Remsen
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by mohave_mauler1
Originally Posted by MadMooner
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
How ever informed he or anyone else is, it has shades of Tennessee v Garner. The case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court, and is the latest ruling in regards to shooting fleeing suspects.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
The probable cause of the current case will have to be decided in a court of law to determine whether Brooks was a threat that justifies deadly force.
Garner wouldn't control this case. In 2014, the Supreme Court revisited Garner and while it didn't overrule, it distinguished the facts in finding that a cop who killed a fleeing suspect did not violate the 4th (or 8th, for some folks here) amendment. The case is Plumoff v. Rickard and the facts there are a lot closer to the Atlanta shooting than Garner's facts were. To wit, from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision...
"Near midnight on July 18, 2004, Lieutenant Joseph Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas, Police Department pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. Forthman noticed an indentation, “ ‘roughly the size of a head or a basketball’ ” in the windshield of the car. Estate of Allen v. West Memphis, 2011 WL 197426, *1 (WD Tenn., Jan. 20, 2011). He asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his driver’s license upon request and appeared nervous, Forthman asked him to step out of the car. Rather than comply with Forthman’s request, Rickard sped away.
Forthman gave chase and was soon joined by five other police cruisers driven by Sergeant Vance Plumhoff and Officers Jimmy Evans, Lance Ellis, Troy Galtelli, and John Gardner. The officers pursued Rickard east on In-terstate 40 toward Memphis, Tennessee. While on I–40, they attempted to stop Rickard using a “rolling roadblock,” id., at *2, but they were unsuccessful. The District Court described the vehicles as “swerving through traffic at high speeds,” id., at *8, and respondent does not dispute that the cars attained speeds over 100 miles per hour.[2] See Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 2:05–cv–2585 (WD Tenn.), p. 16; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 54:23–55:6. During the chase, Rickard and the officers passed more than two dozen vehicles.
Rickard eventually exited I–40 in Memphis, and shortly afterward he made “a quick right turn,” causing “contact [to] occu[r]” between his car and Evans’ cruiser. 2011 WL 197426, *3. As a result of that contact, Rickard’s car spun out into a parking lot and collided with Plumhoff’s cruiser. Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” Ibid. As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and approached Rickard’s car, and Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window. At that point, Rickard’s car “made contact with” yet another police cruiser. Ibid. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” ibid., indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building. Ibid. Rickard and Allen both died from some combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered in the crash that ended the chase. See App. 60, 76."
I'd argue that the facts are pretty close to identical until the bad guy in this case started his 100+mph getaway, but I'd also argue that a suspect who physically assaults the arresting officer, steals his taser, runs, then shoots the taser at the cop was showing a much greater threat than the guy just trying to drive off (and the fact that the cop in Plumoff fired 15 rounds over time vs 3 shots by the ATL cops shows that the ATL cops were far more restrained).
Garner was a civil case. It has exactly zero precedential value in this criminal prosecution. It could not be less relevant.
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
A always good to get input from a Walmart greeter. Not enough skills to get on at Costco? Pretty funny coming from someone who pisses his diapers watching an episode of Cops.
Like I said Reba good thing you aren’t LEO, you don’t have the stones for it. You probably shouldn’t even own a gun.
Whatever anybody's opinion, cops are going to ease way back on policing blacks.
White people are going to have to adjust. Staying away from blacks is the best way. Blacks always turn the violence up when the cops back off. They're going to turn it *way* up now. They're going to be killing each other at a brand new level.
Whites would do well to steer clear of it as much as possible.
The repercussions will be far more reaching than that.
Have you ever prosecuted a criminal in court in the US?
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by Remsen
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by mohave_mauler1
Originally Posted by MadMooner
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
Another informed opinion.
How ever informed he or anyone else is, it has shades of Tennessee v Garner. The case was ruled on by the US Supreme Court, and is the latest ruling in regards to shooting fleeing suspects.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
The probable cause of the current case will have to be decided in a court of law to determine whether Brooks was a threat that justifies deadly force.
Garner wouldn't control this case. In 2014, the Supreme Court revisited Garner and while it didn't overrule, it distinguished the facts in finding that a cop who killed a fleeing suspect did not violate the 4th (or 8th, for some folks here) amendment. The case is Plumoff v. Rickard and the facts there are a lot closer to the Atlanta shooting than Garner's facts were. To wit, from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision...
"Near midnight on July 18, 2004, Lieutenant Joseph Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas, Police Department pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. Forthman noticed an indentation, “ ‘roughly the size of a head or a basketball’ ” in the windshield of the car. Estate of Allen v. West Memphis, 2011 WL 197426, *1 (WD Tenn., Jan. 20, 2011). He asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his driver’s license upon request and appeared nervous, Forthman asked him to step out of the car. Rather than comply with Forthman’s request, Rickard sped away.
Forthman gave chase and was soon joined by five other police cruisers driven by Sergeant Vance Plumhoff and Officers Jimmy Evans, Lance Ellis, Troy Galtelli, and John Gardner. The officers pursued Rickard east on In-terstate 40 toward Memphis, Tennessee. While on I–40, they attempted to stop Rickard using a “rolling roadblock,” id., at *2, but they were unsuccessful. The District Court described the vehicles as “swerving through traffic at high speeds,” id., at *8, and respondent does not dispute that the cars attained speeds over 100 miles per hour.[2] See Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 2:05–cv–2585 (WD Tenn.), p. 16; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 54:23–55:6. During the chase, Rickard and the officers passed more than two dozen vehicles.
Rickard eventually exited I–40 in Memphis, and shortly afterward he made “a quick right turn,” causing “contact [to] occu[r]” between his car and Evans’ cruiser. 2011 WL 197426, *3. As a result of that contact, Rickard’s car spun out into a parking lot and collided with Plumhoff’s cruiser. Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” Ibid. As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and approached Rickard’s car, and Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window. At that point, Rickard’s car “made contact with” yet another police cruiser. Ibid. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” ibid., indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building. Ibid. Rickard and Allen both died from some combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered in the crash that ended the chase. See App. 60, 76."
I'd argue that the facts are pretty close to identical until the bad guy in this case started his 100+mph getaway, but I'd also argue that a suspect who physically assaults the arresting officer, steals his taser, runs, then shoots the taser at the cop was showing a much greater threat than the guy just trying to drive off (and the fact that the cop in Plumoff fired 15 rounds over time vs 3 shots by the ATL cops shows that the ATL cops were far more restrained).
Garner was a civil case. It has exactly zero precedential value in this criminal prosecution. It could not be less relevant.
No, but you don't have to be a lawyer to figure this one out. But since you're asking, have you ever prosecuted a criminal case?
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
Its not being skeert of the guy.... its not wanting to take a life when not needed... its a sacred thing. And as I pointed out previously, the charged officer missed his mark a few times by large margins sending bullets into innocent occupied vehicles missing the occupants by not far. Thats extremely reckless and causes way more harm to the public than a disorderly drunk.
Running drunk vs wildly shooting cop who misses by 10’s of feet???
He wasn't just some drunk guy out for a run who got shot for no reason. You're disingenuous. Further evidence of your low intellect.
50 years ago, or likely less, he’d of likely gotten his azz beat with a stick.
He’d of been brought in alive.
Put in a choke hold and after that was outlawed, beaten with night sticks. Either way the dude could have brought under control without a wrestling match. Cant do that anymore, they have taken away tools these guys have for subduing people that ger violent with them. Guy out maneuvered the cops then grabbed a weapon. Tazer this time, do they grab him again and give him a chance at a gun? People picking apart a split second decision while looking at video in slow motion. Guy put himself in that position and suffered the consequences of his actions.
Shooting fleaing suspects in the back is frowned upon...
I wont play the "what if" game. Dude got violent with cops, grabbed one of their weapons then got shot. Does running away make him suddenly not violent? The minute he turned his back he should he no longer be considered a threat?
Well, if he's 15' away sprinting the opposite direction. Yah. Fast action, quick decision and a bad decision. Not making any other claim on the matter. Cop [bleep] up, obviously in my totally irrelevant opinion.
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
Its not being skeert of the guy.... its not wanting to take a life when not needed... its a sacred thing. And as I pointed out previously, the charged officer missed his mark a few times by large margins sending bullets into innocent occupied vehicles missing the occupants by not far. Thats extremely reckless and causes way more harm to the public than a disorderly drunk.
Running drunk vs wildly shooting cop who misses by 10’s of feet???
He wasn't just some drunk guy out for a run who got shot for no reason. You're disingenuous. Further evidence of your low intellect.
Hey I normally don't stick up for these two low brow crazy town goof balls but they're ( their for ejp) still working on their GEDs
This is not what the same DA stated days ago when he responded to Police Officers using taser on protesters that refused to exit a car when ordered to do so. "According to Georgia law a taser is a deadly weapon" he stated when filing charges and have involved offers fired!
I don't think anyone here, besides the commie trolls, would argue that the DA is right about everything.... . A Taser is not a deadly weapon. Fact
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Some folks on here may have developed a cervical strain nodding in agreement w/ the D.A.'s incredibly prejudicial press conference as they gathered tech tips from the simian crew operating the TV. Opinions on here always outnumber and out yell reality.
This is not what the same DA stated days ago when he responded to Police Officers using taser on protesters that refused to exit a car when ordered to do so. "According to Georgia law a taser is a deadly weapon" he stated when filing charges and have involved offers fired!
I don't think anyone here, besides the commie trolls, would argue that the DA is right about chit. A Taser is not a deadly weapon. Fact
Some folks on here may have developed a cervical strain nodding in agreement w/ the D.A.'s incredibly prejudicial press conference as they gathered tech tips from the simian crew operating the TV. Opinions on here always outnumber and out yell reality.
This is not what the same DA stated days ago when he responded to Police Officers using taser on protesters that refused to exit a car when ordered to do so. "According to Georgia law a taser is a deadly weapon" he stated when filing charges and have involved offers fired!
any chance you got a link to that quote? I tried to find it.
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
There is no proof that the attacker was fleeing , he first attacked two cops, that had simply ask him to put his hands behind his back, at that point he savagely attacked knocking both cops to the ground ,all of the while disarming one cop of his taser and only God knows what else ,while striking the other cop countless times . then after breaking free from the cops grasp he started accross the parking lot looking for a better place to make his stand , while on his feet ,but by that time the cop was getting close so he fired the taser at the cops face trying to get the advantage ,this time but the cop was quicker on the draw and was able to defend himself from a comvicted felon that swore not to ever go back to prision, because he knew how clild molesters are treated in prision.
I see no problem with the shooting, one less drunkin child molester in the world.
Blacks kill more blacks than the police ever thought of. All of this ranting against cops by blacks is blacks begging to be victimized by other blacks.
Cops are the only thing that keeps violence in black communities down to a dull roar.
This is not what the same DA stated days ago when he responded to Police Officers using taser on protesters that refused to exit a car when ordered to do so. "According to Georgia law a taser is a deadly weapon" he stated when filing charges and have involved offers fired!
I don't think anyone here, besides the commie trolls, would argue that the DA is right about chit. A Taser is not a deadly weapon. Fact
Do you have a high IQ job?
Please explain, do you believe tasers to be classified as deadly weapons?
There is no proof that the attacker was fleeing , he first attacked two cops, that had simply ask him to put his hands behind his back, at that point he savagely attacked knocking both cops to the ground ,all of the while disarming one cop of his taser and only God knows what else ,while striking the other cop countless times . then after breaking free from the cops grasp he started accross the parking lot looking for a better place to make his stand , while on his feet ,but by that time the cop was getting close so he fired the taser at the cops face trying to get the advantage ,this time but the cop was quicker on the draw and was able to defend himself from a comvicted felon that swore not to ever go back to prision, because he knew how clild molesters are treated in prision.
I see no problem with the shooting, one less drunkin child molester in the world.
I see no problem with the worlds longest sentence either!!!
PS - the answer to the first statement behind the first of 10k commas...
How stupid; " A Tazer is not a deadly weapon." Use the Tazer now you can take their service weapon. I spent almost 30 years helping keep you safe. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
Story going out now, that APD Officers watched the press conference and walked in and turned in their equipment. Four out of six zones are currently unmanned. Apparently its all over Twitter.
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
Really, good gawd take some midol. It was a humorous antidote about back shooting. Times have changed.
There is no proof that the attacker was fleeing , he first attacked two cops, that had simply ask him to put his hands behind his back, at that point he savagely attacked knocking both cops to the ground ,all of the while disarming one cop of his taser and only God knows what else ,while striking the other cop countless times . then after breaking free from the cops grasp he started accross the parking lot looking for a better place to make his stand , while on his feet ,but by that time the cop was getting close so he fired the taser at the cops face trying to get the advantage ,this time but the cop was quicker on the draw and was able to defend himself from a comvicted felon that swore not to ever go back to prision, because he knew how clild molesters are treated in prision.
I see no problem with the shooting, one less drunkin child molester in the world.
I see no problem with the worlds longest sentence either!!!
PS - the answer to the first statement behind the first of 10k commas...
He stopped punching and ran away, thats fleeing.
.
^ thats a period.
On my phone ass plug !
I thought I put enough commas in there for you tardfarmers but I guess not .
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
Really, good gawd take some midol. It was a humorous antidote about back shooting. Times have changed.
Good thing none of you are LEO. Being skeert of a drunk guy running away packing a bright yellow deployed taser wouldn’t be helpful.
Its not being skeert of the guy.... its not wanting to take a life when not needed... its a sacred thing. And as I pointed out previously, the charged officer missed his mark a few times by large margins sending bullets into innocent occupied vehicles missing the occupants by not far. Thats extremely reckless and causes way more harm to the public than a disorderly drunk.
Running drunk vs wildly shooting cop who misses by 10’s of feet???
He wasn't just some drunk guy out for a run who got shot for no reason. You're disingenuous. Further evidence of your low intellect.
Hey I normally don't stick up for these two low brow crazy town goof balls but they're ( their for ejp) still working on their GEDs
Again Mr Ivy League, always pointing out peoples intelligence or lack there of to boost up your self esteem...
GS12? Did ya make a 13 or 14?? Who gets that degree to earn that, and pokes fun at how stupid you think people are.... now we know who the real dummy is.... high test score or not.
Some folks on here may have developed a cervical strain nodding in agreement w/ the D.A.'s incredibly prejudicial press conference as they gathered tech tips from the simian crew operating the TV. Opinions on here always outnumber and out yell reality.
mike r
Making chit up won't strengthen your position.
My position? facts matter, we all know how opinions are graded, you may have conflated the two. I have seen enough to have an opinion and that is that many folks have no training or experience on the matters under discussion. My position is that most do best when their "system" is tuned to receive rather than broadcast.
Do you suppose they could just come right out and ask what it would take....short of a public execution.....for them to not loot and burn the city?
Just approach the subject directly?
I think they'd love to see the public execution. To celebrate "justice", they'd burn the city to the ground, as though the Falcons just won the Super Bowl...
How stupid; " A Tazer is not a deadly weapon." Use the Tazer now you can take their service weapon. I spent almost 30 years helping keep you safe. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
The cop made a quick but incorrect decision to shoot someone fleaing in the back. Truth. Sucks, but it's not OK to shoot fleeing perps.
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
Really, good gawd take some midol. It was a humorous antidote about back shooting. Times have changed.
I bet gramps never paid that $20 ticket either.
sorry, was about 1930. About then he had to take work timber falling for $1/day. He said that was the only ticket he ever got and didn't pay it.
Entitled, phucqk, nothing could be further from the truth. Never really noticed you before but you do seem like a bitch. Best of luck with your period.
Depression Era dairy farmer taken out of school after the eighth grade an entitled chit? OK there... I'd put him right up there with the hardest working self sufficient men anyone on this forum ever met. Entitled chit? Phucqk you.
Some folks on here may have developed a cervical strain nodding in agreement w/ the D.A.'s incredibly prejudicial press conference as they gathered tech tips from the simian crew operating the TV. Opinions on here always outnumber and out yell reality.
mike r
Making chit up won't strengthen your position.
My position? facts matter, we all know how opinions are graded, you may have conflated the two. I have seen enough to have an opinion and that is that many folks have no training or experience on the matters under discussion. My position is that most do best when their "system" is tuned to receive rather than broadcast.
YMMV
mike r
Well, you assume folks all got there opinions from the MSN or such, right? I sure didn't. I formed it today watching a video showing a cop making a bad decision to shoot a fleaing pos, but American citizen pos, in the back from like 15'. Poor choice, a mistake, should not have IMO.
How stupid; " A Tazer is not a deadly weapon." Use the Tazer now you can take their service weapon. I spent almost 30 years helping keep you safe. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
The cop made a quick but incorrect decision to shoot someone fleaing in the back. Truth. Sucks, but it's not OK to shoot fleeing perps.
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
Really, good gawd take some midol. It was a humorous antidote about back shooting. Times have changed.
I bet gramps never paid that $20 ticket either.
sorry, was about 1930. About then he had to take work timber falling for $1/day. He said that was the only ticket he ever got and didn't pay it.
Entitled, phucqk, nothing could be further from the truth. Never really noticed you before but you do seem like a bitch. Best of luck with your period.
Lol. In less than two lines you shared a story where gramps 1) completely disregarded our laws... 2) was apparently poaching... and 3) tried to run from the cops when caught. Yep, gramps was entitled. FACT. Sorry.
How stupid; " A Tazer is not a deadly weapon." Use the Tazer now you can take their service weapon. I spent almost 30 years helping keep you safe. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
The cop made a quick but incorrect decision to shoot someone fleaing in the back. Truth. Sucks, but it's not OK to shoot fleeing perps.
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
Really, good gawd take some midol. It was a humorous antidote about back shooting. Times have changed.
I bet gramps never paid that $20 ticket either.
sorry, was about 1930. About then he had to take work timber falling for $1/day. He said that was the only ticket he ever got and didn't pay it.
Entitled, phucqk, nothing could be further from the truth. Never really noticed you before but you do seem like a bitch. Best of luck with your period.
Lol. In less than two lines you shared a story where gramps 1) completely disregarded our laws... 2) was apparently poaching... and 3) tried to run from the cops when caught. Yep, gramps was entitled. FACT. Sorry.
Uhh. Suck :Flave's dick.
Just imagine all the black tail deer that got ate too. You have lots of knowledge about 1930 Clackamas County Oregon?
Turning on each other because of simple differences of opinion. That's a win for the left.
LMAO
The left that told you how to feel about all of this?
No, I've not heard anything from the left. What I see are guys here, you included, telling others they're not worth a chit because their opinions differ. That's a win for the left cause it certainly ain't for the right. Of course that's just opinion.
How stupid; " A Tazer is not a deadly weapon." Use the Tazer now you can take their service weapon. I spent almost 30 years helping keep you safe. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
The cop made a quick but incorrect decision to shoot someone fleaing in the back. Truth. Sucks, but it's not OK to shoot fleeing perps.
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
Really, good gawd take some midol. It was a humorous antidote about back shooting. Times have changed.
I bet gramps never paid that $20 ticket either.
sorry, was about 1930. About then he had to take work timber falling for $1/day. He said that was the only ticket he ever got and didn't pay it.
Entitled, phucqk, nothing could be further from the truth. Never really noticed you before but you do seem like a bitch. Best of luck with your period.
Lol. In less than two lines you shared a story where gramps 1) completely disregarded our laws... 2) was apparently poaching... and 3) tried to run from the cops when caught. Yep, gramps was entitled. FACT. Sorry.
How stupid; " A Tazer is not a deadly weapon." Use the Tazer now you can take their service weapon. I spent almost 30 years helping keep you safe. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
The cop made a quick but incorrect decision to shoot someone fleaing in the back. Truth. Sucks, but it's not OK to shoot fleeing perps.
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
My grandfather got caught trying to net some Chinook in a river. Turned and ran from the cop. He was told, "stop or I will shoot you in the back." Gramps stopped, got a $20 ticket. That was about 1920. He luckily was white and not stupid.
Thank you. That's my experience. Carry on.
Did gramps try and shoot the cop in the face with a deadly weapon from mere feet away after fighting him on the ground to resist arrest? Either way, your gramps sounds like he was a real entitled piece of shyt.
Really, good gawd take some midol. It was a humorous antidote about back shooting. Times have changed.
I bet gramps never paid that $20 ticket either.
sorry, was about 1930. About then he had to take work timber falling for $1/day. He said that was the only ticket he ever got and didn't pay it.
Entitled, phucqk, nothing could be further from the truth. Never really noticed you before but you do seem like a bitch. Best of luck with your period.
Lol. In less than two lines you shared a story where gramps 1) completely disregarded our laws... 2) was apparently poaching... and 3) tried to run from the cops when caught. Yep, gramps was entitled. FACT. Sorry.
Cop was in a rapidly developing, high stress situation. Dude Rag dolled and rolled over him and his partner and ran away after having a 40 minute conversation. That’s situation went from 0-100 in seconds. While chasing this guy he saw the guy turn around and shoot at him. Doesn’t matter if it was a taser, BB gun or water pistol. It happened too quickly for him to think...he reacted the way he was trained. He moved off line and returned fire. Given a fair trial and good lawyer, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him cleared.
So, by your logic.....a perp can shoot til he’s out of ammo.......then quickly turn around and not be worried about getting shot in the back?
There are no time-outs when the line is crossed.
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
Cop was in a rapidly developing, high stress situation. Dude Rag dolled and rolled over him and his partner and ran away after having a 40 minute conversation. That’s situation went from 0-100 in seconds. While chasing this guy he saw the guy turn around and shoot at him. Doesn’t matter if it was a taser, BB gun or water pistol. It happened too quickly for him to think...he reacted the way he was trained. He moved off line and returned fire. Given a fair trial and good lawyer, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him cleared.
Yes sir.
Did he know exactly what was shot at him? Did he know what weapons were taken from him and his partner?
Cop was forced into a [bleep] situation. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
So, by your logic.....a perp can shoot til he’s out of ammo.......then quickly turn around and not be worried about getting shot in the back?
There are no time-outs when the line is crossed.
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
I just don't see why you would respond like this. RB said nothing of the sort that you are implying.
His point was......when the perp turns and runs away........no longer a threat. Shooting not justified because of this.....his logic.
Taser, pepper spray, firearm........using any against law enforcement isn’t suddenly canceled when a perp turns his back to run.
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by MIKEWERNER
So, by your logic.....a perp can shoot til he’s out of ammo.......then quickly turn around and not be worried about getting shot in the back?
There are no time-outs when the line is crossed.
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
I just don't see why you would respond like this. RB said nothing of the sort that you are implying.
So, by your logic.....a perp can shoot til he’s out of ammo.......then quickly turn around and not be worried about getting shot in the back?
There are no time-outs when the line is crossed.
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
I just don't see why you would respond like this. RB said nothing of the sort that you are implying.
His point was......when the perp turns and runs away........no longer a threat. Shooting not justified because of this.....his logic.
Taser, pepper spray, firearm........using any against law enforcement isn’t suddenly canceled when a perp turns his back to run.
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by MIKEWERNER
So, by your logic.....a perp can shoot til he’s out of ammo.......then quickly turn around and not be worried about getting shot in the back?
There are no time-outs when the line is crossed.
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
I just don't see why you would respond like this. RB said nothing of the sort that you are implying.
Please explain, do you believe tasers to be classified as deadly weapons?
In 2008 a Baron Pikes was killed by a taser used by police officer Scott Nugent in Winnfield Louisiana. The coroner blamed the officer for committing an illegal homicide and specified that the man was killed with the taser. The officer was acquitted of any crime but the taser was considered the cause of death. No less than the left wing organization Amnesty International has declared the taser a deadly weapon.
Please explain, do you believe tasers to be classified as deadly weapons?
In 2008 a Baron Pikes was killed by a taser used by police officer Scott Nugent in Winnfield Louisiana. The coroner blamed the officer for committing an illegal homicide and specified that the man was killed with the taser. The officer was acquitted of any crime but the taser was considered the cause of death. No less than the left wing organization Amnesty International has declared the taser a deadly weapon.
Thanks. Referenced above is a SCOTUS decision. Fairly common to be classified as less than lethal. Would you like to call each other names now? Kidding.
So, by your logic.....a perp can shoot til he’s out of ammo.......then quickly turn around and not be worried about getting shot in the back?
There are no time-outs when the line is crossed.
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
I'm as pro-cop as it gets.
But when you look at the video where he was shot, he'd already fired the taser over his shoulder while running away, then continued to run away when shot in the back.
I would have let him go, and gotten a warrant, and picked him up later.
Perhaps the shooting would have been justified when he was getting the best of the two cops when they were fighting him on the ground, and he grabbed the taser.
But that didn't happen. It's a question of timing. At the moment of getting shot, he wasn't much of a threat.
This doesn't excuse what the POS did, or make him a "Good Boy". Those types usually end up getting killed by the sword because they live by the sword...
I just don't see why you would respond like this. RB said nothing of the sort that you are implying.
Your deep thinking is on full display.
And yours. I didn't see where RB said anything like letting perps fire all their ammo before taking action. Didn't jibe. MW cleared it up. You on the other hand seem to think your opinion matters more than others. It doesn't.
OK. Not sure. But, to me the officer made the wrong call. Guess we are in disagreement. Should we call each other names now, or just see what unfolds
Try and guess what happens five moves after your getting your wish.
I don't need to guess anything. That's not my involvement. I just don't agree with police in this instance deciding to shoot the perp in the back while running away. BFD
OK. Not sure. But, to me the officer made the wrong call. Guess we are in disagreement. Should we call each other names now, or just see what unfolds
Try and guess what happens five moves after your getting your wish.
I don't need to guess anything. That's not my involvement. I just don't agree with police in this instance deciding to shoot the perp in the back while running away. BFD
Would it have be Ok if he were running backwards ?
Please explain, do you believe tasers to be classified as deadly weapons?
In 2008 a Baron Pikes was killed by a taser used by police officer Scott Nugent in Winnfield Louisiana. The coroner blamed the officer for committing an illegal homicide and specified that the man was killed with the taser. The officer was acquitted of any crime but the taser was considered the cause of death. No less than the left wing organization Amnesty International has declared the taser a deadly weapon.
Thanks. Referenced above is a SCOTUS decision. Fairly common to be classified as less than lethal. Would you like to call each other names now? Kidding.
In my law enforcement training we were constantly reminded to remember that over 30% of LEOs that are shot are shot with their own sidearm. And of paramount importance in any physical proximity to a subject we were taught to protect our weapon from being taken. It was drilled into us that anyone you were grappling with was armed if he overpowered you. It was made plain in one class that I remember very well to shoot to kill any assailant that managed to take a night stick (baton) or our pepper spray. The reason being that he had the means to take your sidearm at that time. An officer is allowed to up the ante in the force continuum. I never carried a taser and am unfamiliar with the device but I am assuming that in the short time duration of this incident the officers didn't have the luxury of guessing what this dude would do next.
Why is it these cases of systemic racism usually always involve ‘regular customers’ for law enforcement?
Quote
Atlanta Police Shooting: Rayshard Brooks Out on Parole; Past Crimes Include Cruelty to Children, Family Violence-Battery, Theft, Credit Card Fraud & More...
If the quotes are true and accurate that District Attorney Paul Howard said that a taser is considered a “lethal weapon” when used by police on protesters....But a “non-lethal” weapon in the situation where a black man was shot by a cop.
My opinion is...
The Atlanta DA is a Fûck'n POS who deserves to have his ass tased, then beat with an ASP and finally shot in the back.
No, they didn't have any such luxury.. And shot a guy running away roughly 15' away iirc. I fully respect that you concider it justified.
Now I didn't say it was justified and to be straight with you I haven't watched the video. I will say that 15 feet is a very short distance. And I don't know what the officer perceived in what had to have been an excited and stressed state of mind. What I have a lot of trouble understanding is why would a white man consider serving as a policeman in a black majority urban area. If you think you have to be a LEO go to work in Wyoming or Montana or even northeast California or be a state or federal game warden. Don't even think you can make a difference in Haiti West. There is nothing but trouble and heartache in big urban policing. Look who is getting punished and who isn't.
Big difference between an unarmed perp running away and a guy who has already beaten two cops, tazed one and now is shooting as he runs. Cop is allowed to shoot him in the back IMO, as anybody should be and should. Good shoot. Boys in blue are right on this one.
Yah, justified was my word... Only 15 feet or so, ain't much. He was sprinting away. But a pos is a pos. About the last job I would wish upon anyone. There's no solution but crack down on the thugs and stop letting them get away with chit. Likelihood of that happening? Damned slim to none. It'll not be the last we see of this chit, bad outcomes and over-reactions. There's always been thugs but good gawd it seems they have no recourse now. Imagine, NO Bail areas! WTF?
Yah, justified was my word... Only 15 feet or so, ain't much. He was sprinting away. But a pos is a pos. About the last job I would wish upon anyone. There's no solution but crack down on the thugs and stop letting them get away with chit. Likelihood of that happening? Damned slim to none. It'll not be the last we see of this chit, bad outcomes and over-reactions. There's always been thugs but good gawd it seems they have no recourse now. Imagine, NO Bail areas! WTF?
Anyways.
There's a dentist in Oklahoma that shot a black thug in the back as he ran away and is still rotting in prison. I said it then and I'll say it now in support of this cop...Maybe shooting him in the back IS self-defense. In the dentist's case, there's a good possibility the guy would've came back with friends, looking to kill him. In this case, the guy was shooting as he ran. Both should be justified.
Yah, justified was my word... Only 15 feet or so, ain't much. He was sprinting away. But a pos is a pos. About the last job I would wish upon anyone. There's no solution but crack down on the thugs and stop letting them get away with chit. Likelihood of that happening? Damned slim to none. It'll not be the last we see of this chit, bad outcomes and over-reactions. There's always been thugs but good gawd it seems they have no recourse now. Imagine, NO Bail areas! WTF?
Anyways.
There's a dentist in Oklahoma that shot a black thug in the back as he ran away and is still rotting in prison. I said it then and I'll say it now in support of this cop...Maybe shooting him in the back IS self-defense. In the dentist's case, there's a good possibility the guy would've came back with friends, looking to kill him. In this case, the guy was shooting as he ran. Both should be justified.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
One of the little rats that robbed the pharmacy and lived was also convictes of murder but released aftet 4 years. Meanwhile Erslund will die in prison.
Yah, justified was my word... Only 15 feet or so, ain't much. He was sprinting away. But a pos is a pos. About the last job I would wish upon anyone. There's no solution but crack down on the thugs and stop letting them get away with chit. Likelihood of that happening? Damned slim to none. It'll not be the last we see of this chit, bad outcomes and over-reactions. There's always been thugs but good gawd it seems they have no recourse now. Imagine, NO Bail areas! WTF?
Anyways.
There's a dentist in Oklahoma that shot a black thug in the back as he ran away and is still rotting in prison. I said it then and I'll say it now in support of this cop...Maybe shooting him in the back IS self-defense. In the dentist's case, there's a good possibility the guy would've came back with friends, looking to kill him. In this case, the guy was shooting as he ran. Both should be justified.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
One of the little rats that robbed the pharmacy and lived was also convictes of murder but released aftet 4 years. Meanwhile Erslund will die in prison.
They really oughta have these trials in Semi Valley....
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
Nope, Ersland got what he deserved. You can shoot people in self-defense, but you don't get to shoot people because you're angry with them.
"Ersland is seen grabbing a handgun from behind a counter and firing it, striking Parker in the head as he tries to put on a ski mask. Parker, who was unarmed, falls to the floor out of view of the camera.
Ersland then chases the armed man out of the store. When he returns, Ersland walks behind a counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second handgun and returns to Parker, standing over him as he fires five more shots into his torso. Medical examiner's ruled that Parker did not die from the initial shot to the head but was killed by the additional gunshot wounds."
His 16-year-old victim was also unconscious as Ersland killed him:
"But criminal law experts said self-defense has limits, particularly in this case, because Parker was unconscious when Ersland fired again.""
And yours. I didn't see where RB said anything like letting perps fire all their ammo before taking action. Didn't jibe. MW cleared it up. You on the other hand seem to think your opinion matters more than others. It doesn't.
I'm glad you can grasp the concept after Mike explained it. Again.
I don't need to guess anything. That's not my involvement. I just don't agree with police in this instance deciding to shoot the perp in the back while running away. BFD
OK. Not sure. But, to me the officer made the wrong call. Guess we are in disagreement. Should we call each other names now, or just see what unfolds
Try and guess what happens five moves after your getting your wish.
I don't need to guess anything. That's not my involvement. I just don't agree with police in this instance deciding to shoot the perp in the back while running away. BFD
Would it have be Ok if he were running backwards ?
Whoa now, Jimy.
Don't go throwing brain teasers like that into the mix.
Everybody knows any shot to the back or side is murder.
And yours. I didn't see where RB said anything like letting perps fire all their ammo before taking action. Didn't jibe. MW cleared it up. You on the other hand seem to think your opinion matters more than others. It doesn't.
I'm glad you can grasp the concept after Mike explained it. Again.
OK. Not sure. But, to me the officer made the wrong call. Guess we are in disagreement. Should we call each other names now, or just see what unfolds
Try and guess what happens five moves after your getting your wish.
I don't need to guess anything. That's not my involvement. I just don't agree with police in this instance deciding to shoot the perp in the back while running away. BFD
Would it have be Ok if he were running backwards ?
Whoa now, Jimy.
Don't go throwing brain teasers like that into the mix.
Everybody knows any shot to the back or side is murder.
Really, who said that? Making chit up? Atta boy. You're on a roll Travis.
OK. Not sure. But, to me the officer made the wrong call. Guess we are in disagreement. Should we call each other names now, or just see what unfolds
Try and guess what happens five moves after your getting your wish.
I don't need to guess anything. That's not my involvement. I just don't agree with police in this instance deciding to shoot the perp in the back while running away. BFD
Would it have be Ok if he were running backwards ?
Didn't see your post jimy. No I don't think it would matter if an essentially unarmed perp was running backwards away from the officer at the distance he was. Bad deal. I don't agree with the charges, however, no I don't think it was a good shoot.
Didn't see your post jimy. No I don't think it would matter if an essentially unarmed perp was running backwards away from the officer at the distance he was. Bad deal. I don't agree with the charges, however, no I don't think it was a good shoot.
Now Hastings has made some good points, and MadMooner. It's fairly reasonable to not have a complete grasp of everything that happened so fast, gun, taser, one shot, or two. It's decent folk that help make this place work. Scum DA, scum perp, scum system. Phucqk it.
Didn't see your post jimy. No I don't think it would matter if an essentially unarmed perp was running backwards away from the officer at the distance he was. Bad deal. I don't agree with the charges, however, no I don't think it was a good shoot.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
Nope, Ersland got what he deserved. You can shoot people in self-defense, but you don't get to shoot people because you're angry with them.
"Ersland is seen grabbing a handgun from behind a counter and firing it, striking Parker in the head as he tries to put on a ski mask. Parker, who was unarmed, falls to the floor out of view of the camera.
Ersland then chases the armed man out of the store. When he returns, Ersland walks behind a counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second handgun and returns to Parker, standing over him as he fires five more shots into his torso. Medical examiner's ruled that Parker did not die from the initial shot to the head but was killed by the additional gunshot wounds."
His 16-year-old victim was also unconscious as Ersland killed him:
"But criminal law experts said self-defense has limits, particularly in this case, because Parker was unconscious when Ersland fired again.""
Go crawl back under your rock, you giggle-fu dumb phugk.
I guess an advanced degree in Criminal Justice and about 9 years wearing a badge must be different than your experience.
They taught us that a suspect headed the other direction was not justification for being in fear for our life, way back in the dark ages.
They also taught us the difference in a guy that had committed murder or the like was a different degree of threat than a guy that was DUI and had resisted arrest.
Killing a guy like that sure wouldn't be my choice of a hill to die on.
You can continue your insults and name calling. I'm done here.
If the quotes are true and accurate that District Attorney Paul Howard said that a taser is considered a “lethal weapon” when used by police on protesters....But a “non-lethal” weapon in the situation where a black man was shot by a cop.
My opinion is...
The Atlanta DA is a Fûck'n POS who deserves to have his ass tased, then beat with an ASP and finally shot in the back.
I guess an advanced degree in Criminal Justice and about 9 years wearing a badge must be different than your experience.
They taught us that a suspect headed the other direction was not justification for being in fear for our life, way back in the dark ages.
They also taught us the difference in a guy that had committed murder or the like was a different degree of threat than a guy that was DUI and had resisted arrest.
Killing a guy like that sure wouldn't be my choice of a hill to die on.
You can continue your insults and name calling. I'm done here.
"About 9 years wearing a badge" gives you a perspective. Not a definitive opinion. An educated one for sure, but still. Like others here, you are phrasing the encounter to meet your justifications for what you dug your heels in as what you said the cop ought to have done.
How long ago did you take off your badge, and when was the last time you had a refresher from your agency's lawyers?
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for among other things, child cruelty. He had just went to Ohio against his probation terms was told he was on a zero tolerance policy.
He knew that failing the breathlyzer was a one way ticket back to prison for him.
You can never judge a man on what he might do, but it was pretty clear Rayshard Brooks had no intention of going back to prison. If he was willing to fight cops and use a taser to attempt to get away, then its reasonable to assume that given the opportunity and time to hole up, he'd get a gun - possibly harming innocents, family or police when they came to arrest him.
I guess an advanced degree in Criminal Justice and about 9 years wearing a badge must be different than your experience.
They taught us that a suspect headed the other direction was not justification for being in fear for our life, way back in the dark ages.
They also taught us the difference in a guy that had committed murder or the like was a different degree of threat than a guy that was DUI and had resisted arrest.
Killing a guy like that sure wouldn't be my choice of a hill to die on.
You can continue your insults and name calling. I'm done here.
Tell us about the ooda loop and high stress situations like assaults and shootings then. Your "advanced degree" should be handy in this one.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for among other things, child cruelty. He had just went to Ohio against his probation terms was told he was on a zero tolerance policy.
He knew that failing the breathlyzer was a one way ticket back to prison for him.
You can never judge a man on what he might do, but it was pretty clear Rayshard Brooks had no intention of going back to prison. If he was willing to fight cops and use a taser to attempt to get away, then its reasonable to assume that given the opportunity and time to hole up, he'd get a gun - possibly harming innocents, family or police when they came to arrest him.
According to one of the mind reading experts with an advanced degree they should have just let him escape then he could hole up with one his baby Mommas and her children. Then he would be easy just to go scoop him up with zero problems.
Fulton Co GA AG is making his case for charges against the police officer(s)
it appears the 2nd officer will be a witness against the officer who fired shots
Charged with Felony Murder And 10 other charges
Amazing. The suspect broke loose while being arrested on a felony charge, grabbed the officer's Taser, turned and pointed it at him, and even fired it (you can see the wires and barbs fly out), and the officer fired back, as instinct and training directed him, and he's charged with murder.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for among other things, child cruelty. He had just went to Ohio against his probation terms was told he was on a zero tolerance policy.
He knew that failing the breathlyzer was a one way ticket back to prison for him.
You can never judge a man on what he might do, but it was pretty clear Rayshard Brooks had no intention of going back to prison. If he was willing to fight cops and use a taser to attempt to get away, then its reasonable to assume that given the opportunity and time to hole up, he'd get a gun - possibly harming innocents, family or police when they came to arrest him.
There is an interview this morning of him on CNN complaining that probation was not helping him enough, he had to do it all on his own (get a job for example) and that they needed to mentor him more. This is where white liberal culture has failed blacks by embuing them with this sense of entitlement, no sense of self-responsibility and constant excuse-making.
Yah, justified was my word... Only 15 feet or so, ain't much. He was sprinting away. But a pos is a pos. About the last job I would wish upon anyone. There's no solution but crack down on the thugs and stop letting them get away with chit. Likelihood of that happening? Damned slim to none. It'll not be the last we see of this chit, bad outcomes and over-reactions. There's always been thugs but good gawd it seems they have no recourse now. Imagine, NO Bail areas! WTF?
Anyways.
There's a dentist in Oklahoma that shot a black thug in the back as he ran away and is still rotting in prison. I said it then and I'll say it now in support of this cop...Maybe shooting him in the back IS self-defense. In the dentist's case, there's a good possibility the guy would've came back with friends, looking to kill him. In this case, the guy was shooting as he ran. Both should be justified.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
One of the little rats that robbed the pharmacy and lived was also convictes of murder but released aftet 4 years. Meanwhile Erslund will die in prison.
Pharmacist, not Dentist. That's right. It's difficult to believe a good lawyer couldn't have gotten him completely off.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for among other things, child cruelty. He had just went to Ohio against his probation terms was told he was on a zero tolerance policy.
He knew that failing the breathlyzer was a one way ticket back to prison for him.
You can never judge a man on what he might do, but it was pretty clear Rayshard Brooks had no intention of going back to prison. If he was willing to fight cops and use a taser to attempt to get away, then its reasonable to assume that given the opportunity and time to hole up, he'd get a gun - possibly harming innocents, family or police when they came to arrest him.
According to one of the mind reading experts with an advanced degree they should have just let him escape then he could hole up with one his baby Mommas and her children. Then he would be easy just to go scoop him up with zero problems.
Yah, justified was my word... Only 15 feet or so, ain't much. He was sprinting away. But a pos is a pos. About the last job I would wish upon anyone. There's no solution but crack down on the thugs and stop letting them get away with chit. Likelihood of that happening? Damned slim to none. It'll not be the last we see of this chit, bad outcomes and over-reactions. There's always been thugs but good gawd it seems they have no recourse now. Imagine, NO Bail areas! WTF?
Anyways.
There's a dentist in Oklahoma that shot a black thug in the back as he ran away and is still rotting in prison. I said it then and I'll say it now in support of this cop...Maybe shooting him in the back IS self-defense. In the dentist's case, there's a good possibility the guy would've came back with friends, looking to kill him. In this case, the guy was shooting as he ran. Both should be justified.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
One of the little rats that robbed the pharmacy and lived was also convictes of murder but released aftet 4 years. Meanwhile Erslund will die in prison.
Pharmacist, not Dentist. That's right. It's difficult to believe a good lawyer couldn't have gotten him completely off.
I could see manslaughter and a slap on the wrist but murder 1 and life was a HUGE miscarriage of justice.
If the quotes are true and accurate that District Attorney Paul Howard said that a taser is considered a “lethal weapon” when used by police on protesters....But a “non-lethal” weapon in the situation where a black man was shot by a cop.
My opinion is...
The Atlanta DA is a Fûck'n POS who deserves to have his ass tased, then beat with an ASP and finally shot in the back.
😎
Boomer,
Did you even take the time to view this vid?
It’s not the first time this has happened.
Note, there’s two cops, same as the Brooks shoot.
😎
The add this finding concerning Taser's to the equation.
I wonder, do people think Rayshard made a conscious decision over grabbing the taser versus the glock? LIke I'm grabbing the taser because its a non lethal option to help me escape? That he is that kind of humanitarian?
Would they defend him running away getting shot in the back after firing the glock at the policeman?
What about an abstract object like an aluminum bat - took a few swings at the cop then run off with the bat in his hand?
Big difference between an unarmed perp running away and a guy who has already beaten two cops, tazed one and now is shooting as he runs. Cop is allowed to shoot him in the back IMO, as anybody should be and should. Good shoot. Boys in blue are right on this one.
^^^This^^^
I’m not sure how the shot in the back stuff comes into play at all. He wasn’t shot in the back passively running. He was shot in the back while running and shooting a weapon over his shoulder at police. Someone fleeing while shooting over their shoulder is a threat.
I keep hearing that “African American males” are scared to death of the police and that their fathers all have this “talk” with them. Yet the common denominator in these guys dying is them fighting with police, arguing, not complying with basic demands and so on. They don’t look to be scared of police.
Shoot I’m scared of a speeding ticket or DUI so I don’t do it. These fellas are passed out drunk in fast food parking lots, or high on meth handing out counterfeit money and all while out on parol or probation and without a seeming care in the world to potential consequences from the courts or law enforcement that they claim to be so scared of and brutalized by. If they’re really even 10% as scared as they say that they are they should be the model citizens of our society.
I keep hearing that “African American males” are scared to death of the police and that their fathers all have this “talk” with them. Yet the common denominator in these guys dying is them fighting with police, arguing, not complying with basic demands and so on. They don’t look to be scared of police.
Shoot I’m scared of a speeding ticket or DUI so I don’t do it. These fellas are passed out drunk in fast food parking lots, or high on meth handing out counterfeit money and all while out on parol or probation and without a seeming care in the world to potential consequences from the courts or law enforcement that they claim to be so scared of and brutalized by. If they’re really even 10% as scared as they say that they are they should be the model citizens of our society.
Another great post about one of the biggest myths constantly propagated in our society. The other being that the percentage of incarcerated black males in our prisons is proof of systemic racism. Where are the large numbers of incarcerated Jews and Asians? I guess they were overlooked by the white supremacists system because they were so busy locking up the blacks? I’m sure they’ll get to them once they realize it.
Big difference between an unarmed perp running away and a guy who has already beaten two cops, tazed one and now is shooting as he runs. Cop is allowed to shoot him in the back IMO, as anybody should be and should. Good shoot. Boys in blue are right on this one.
^^^This^^^
I’m not sure how the shot in the back stuff comes into play at all. He wasn’t shot in the back passively running. He was shot in the back while running and shooting a weapon over his shoulder at police. Someone fleeing while shooting over their shoulder is a threat.
The whole "shot in the back" mantra is just used to solicit an emotional response by those that don't know any better.
One of our former judges in this parish once famously (or infamously) said a good defense in his court against a murder charge was "the son of a b---h needed killing".
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
Nope, Ersland got what he deserved. You can shoot people in self-defense, but you don't get to shoot people because you're angry with them.
"Ersland is seen grabbing a handgun from behind a counter and firing it, striking Parker in the head as he tries to put on a ski mask. Parker, who was unarmed, falls to the floor out of view of the camera.
Ersland then chases the armed man out of the store. When he returns, Ersland walks behind a counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second handgun and returns to Parker, standing over him as he fires five more shots into his torso. Medical examiner's ruled that Parker did not die from the initial shot to the head but was killed by the additional gunshot wounds."
His 16-year-old victim was also unconscious as Ersland killed him:
"But criminal law experts said self-defense has limits, particularly in this case, because Parker was unconscious when Ersland fired again.""
Go crawl back under your rock, you giggle-fu dumb phugk.
LOL!
I will stay under my rock, and you can stay in your Charles Bronson fantasy land where calmly retrieving a second gun to empty a magazine into an unarmed, unconscious 16-year-old boy lying on the floor is a "good shoot".
Just note that your Charles Bronson fantasy rules will cease to apply when you encounter the legal system.
Yah, justified was my word... Only 15 feet or so, ain't much. He was sprinting away. But a pos is a pos. About the last job I would wish upon anyone. There's no solution but crack down on the thugs and stop letting them get away with chit. Likelihood of that happening? Damned slim to none. It'll not be the last we see of this chit, bad outcomes and over-reactions. There's always been thugs but good gawd it seems they have no recourse now. Imagine, NO Bail areas! WTF?
Anyways.
There's a dentist in Oklahoma that shot a black thug in the back as he ran away and is still rotting in prison. I said it then and I'll say it now in support of this cop...Maybe shooting him in the back IS self-defense. In the dentist's case, there's a good possibility the guy would've came back with friends, looking to kill him. In this case, the guy was shooting as he ran. Both should be justified.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
One of the little rats that robbed the pharmacy and lived was also convictes of murder but released aftet 4 years. Meanwhile Erslund will die in prison.
Pharmacist, not Dentist. That's right. It's difficult to believe a good lawyer couldn't have gotten him completely off.
I could see manslaughter and a slap on the wrist but murder 1 and life was a HUGE miscarriage of justice.
So, you can see manslaughter? Hmmmmm.... Is there like possible middle ground on things? You can't be serious! LOL
One of our former judges in this parish once famously (or infamously) said a good defense in his court against a murder charge was "the son of a b---h needed killing".
This is very appropriate. Imagine the carnage this POS would cause by the time he'd been Floyd's age.
If the quotes are true and accurate that District Attorney Paul Howard said that a taser is considered a “lethal weapon” when used by police on protesters....But a “non-lethal” weapon in the situation where a black man was shot by a cop.
My opinion is...
The Atlanta DA is a Fûck'n POS who deserves to have his ass tased, then beat with an ASP and finally shot in the back.
😎
Boomer,
Did you even take the time to view this vid?
It’s not the first time this has happened.
Note, there’s two cops, same as the Brooks shoot.
😎
The video? The one in the case in question is all I have seen. Literally, about this, other than headlines mixed between justified or not. No TV, No Sat radio, Nada. I did take a little time to read some additional commentary this morning from FOX and Breitbart reports. Guy truly was a piece of chit. DA used the same reasoning I have concluded, gulp, that he should have known the taser had been fired twice... Anyways, the charges are wayyy outa line. But, I don't know Georgia law. Cop looks like a retard to me. Guys looking like that have always looked like retards to me. Retards make more mistakes than non-retards. What'd happened 5 seconds later if not shot in the back, yes, shot in the back at distance is not ok...? He'd runned off. They'd runned after him... Folks disagree. BIG F'ing Deal. My way or the highway guys are generally kchhuunts. Thankfully we're free to express that here. LOL
I guess an advanced degree in Criminal Justice and about 9 years wearing a badge must be different than your experience.
They taught us that a suspect headed the other direction was not justification for being in fear for our life, way back in the dark ages.
They also taught us the difference in a guy that had committed murder or the like was a different degree of threat than a guy that was DUI and had resisted arrest.
Killing a guy like that sure wouldn't be my choice of a hill to die on.
You can continue your insults and name calling. I'm done here.
"About 9 years wearing a badge" gives you a perspective. Not a definitive opinion. An educated one for sure, but still. Like others here, you are phrasing the encounter to meet your justifications for what you dug your heels in as what you said the cop ought to have done.
How long ago did you take off your badge, and when was the last time you had a refresher from your agency's lawyers?
Simply put, you are wrong on this one.
Are you yourself highly experienced in urban policing and Georgia law? One opinion each person. Your opinion is no more valuable than RB's. Or 'Flaves. It's just another.
Was the perp going to turn around and run back toward the officer with the spent taser. OMG, NOOOOOOOOOO, he's a 5'8" monster of negro fear!
Cuomo Prime Time ✔ @CuomoPrimeTime Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms says morale in her city's police department "is down ten-fold" amid reports officers are calling in sick tonight.
"We expect our officers will keep their commitment to our communities," she added. https://cnn.it/2YKAvan
Was the perp going to turn around and run back toward the officer with the spent taser.
The taser was still capable of incapacitation during the entire episode.
And Brooks was a felon in possession, soon as he stole it.
Pretend all he wanted to do was get away and ignore him discharging it at the officer. Subject was still in possession of a weapon. That'd be the means. He'd already shown intent.
Was the perp going to turn around and run back toward the officer with the spent taser.
The taser was still capable of incapacitation during the entire episode.
And Brooks was a felon in possession, soon as he stole it.
Pretend all he wanted to do was get away and ignore him discharging it at the officer. Subject was still in possession of a weapon. That'd be the means. He'd already shown intent.
Wish you could draw with crayons on here.
Some of these guys wouldn’t get it if you put on a puppet show re enactment.
Was the perp going to turn around and run back toward the officer with the spent taser.
The taser was still capable of incapacitation during the entire episode.
And Brooks was a felon in possession, soon as he stole it.
The taser was a two-shot model. He'd discharged it twice... Once when he was close and a threat then again, sprinting away. After which he was a felon afoot. How about a puppet show?
Was the perp going to turn around and run back toward the officer with the spent taser.
The taser was still capable of incapacitation during the entire episode.
And Brooks was a felon in possession, soon as he stole it.
The taser was a two-shot model. He'd discharged it twice... Once when he was close and a threat then again, sprinting away. After which he was a felon afoot. How about a puppet show?
Tried ta educate ya moron, but you're just too smrt.
The taser also works by contact, whether both probes have been discharged or not.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
Nope, Ersland got what he deserved. You can shoot people in self-defense, but you don't get to shoot people because you're angry with them.
"Ersland is seen grabbing a handgun from behind a counter and firing it, striking Parker in the head as he tries to put on a ski mask. Parker, who was unarmed, falls to the floor out of view of the camera.
Ersland then chases the armed man out of the store. When he returns, Ersland walks behind a counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second handgun and returns to Parker, standing over him as he fires five more shots into his torso. Medical examiner's ruled that Parker did not die from the initial shot to the head but was killed by the additional gunshot wounds."
His 16-year-old victim was also unconscious as Ersland killed him:
"But criminal law experts said self-defense has limits, particularly in this case, because Parker was unconscious when Ersland fired again.""
Go crawl back under your rock, you giggle-fu dumb phugk.
LOL!
I will stay under my rock, and you can stay in your Charles Bronson fantasy land where calmly retrieving a second gun to empty a magazine into an unarmed, unconscious 16-year-old boy lying on the floor is a "good shoot".
Just note that your Charles Bronson fantasy rules will cease to apply when you encounter the legal system.
Was the perp going to turn around and run back toward the officer with the spent taser.
The taser was still capable of incapacitation during the entire episode.
And Brooks was a felon in possession, soon as he stole it.
And if a cop is disabled with a taser, who gets control of the cops gun....and then what happens?
Depends, I suppose if the perp runs back toward the officer, which he obviously was not. The taser was no longer a threat, even if Fubur says so. Jeebus. So - the POS runs down the block a ways? BFD
Was the perp going to turn around and run back toward the officer with the spent taser.
The taser was still capable of incapacitation during the entire episode.
And Brooks was a felon in possession, soon as he stole it.
The taser was a two-shot model. He'd discharged it twice... Once when he was close and a threat then again, sprinting away. After which he was a felon afoot. How about a puppet show?
Tried ta educate ya moron, but you're just too smrt.
The taser also works by contact, whether both probes have been discharged or not.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
What pull exactly does the media have?
They’ve convinced you a cop is wrong for shooting somebody that stole and tried to use a weapon on them.
They’ve convinced a ton of members of this forum to huddle in their house and wear masks in public because of a new strain of the common cold.
I have had zero exposure to the media you are referring to. I've made my mind up simply observing the video and this discussion. Yes, it was a link from FOX the evil left wing news source, but I've not been swayed one bit by the media. But, like I have mentioned we are all entitled to an opinion on whatever. I do think there's guys here swayed that because the MSM says so, it must be 100% wrong. Ok. Thanks
I do thank the Fubarski for briefing me up on the capacity of the said Taser unit. So, range is like 15 feet, or arms length. At 20 feet once twice fired, no threat. Thanks, I am glad that is cleared up.....
Nothing new. The news media stirred up U.S. sentiment against Spain way over 100 years ago and got us mixed up in that. Then they beat the drums until we joined World War 1 where we certainly had no business and set the stage for World War 2 which brought the whole civilized world to disaster. For that matter you can reach back and make the argument that the media fanned the smoldering coals that erupted into our uncivil war of 1861. I guess all this media agitating is being protected by the U.S. Constitution as it should be, but yes the media has plenty of pull and influence. And the media is totally abdicating its responsibility in not informing the nation about the lies being spread that there is an epidemic of black African descended Americans being murdered by police officers.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
What pull exactly does the media have?
They’ve convinced you a cop is wrong for shooting somebody that stole and tried to use a weapon on them.
They’ve convinced a ton of members of this forum to huddle in their house and wear masks in public because of a new strain of the common cold.
I have had zero exposure to the media you are referring to. I've made my mind up simply observing the video and this discussion. Yes, it was a link from FOX the evil left wing news source, but I've not been swayed one bit by the media. But, like I have mentioned we are all entitled to an opinion on whatever. I do think there's guys here swayed that because the MSM says so, it must be 100% wrong. Ok. Thanks
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
Nope, Ersland got what he deserved. You can shoot people in self-defense, but you don't get to shoot people because you're angry with them.
"Ersland is seen grabbing a handgun from behind a counter and firing it, striking Parker in the head as he tries to put on a ski mask. Parker, who was unarmed, falls to the floor out of view of the camera.
Ersland then chases the armed man out of the store. When he returns, Ersland walks behind a counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second handgun and returns to Parker, standing over him as he fires five more shots into his torso. Medical examiner's ruled that Parker did not die from the initial shot to the head but was killed by the additional gunshot wounds."
His 16-year-old victim was also unconscious as Ersland killed him:
"But criminal law experts said self-defense has limits, particularly in this case, because Parker was unconscious when Ersland fired again.""
Go crawl back under your rock, you giggle-fu dumb phugk.
LOL!
I will stay under my rock, and you can stay in your Charles Bronson fantasy land where calmly retrieving a second gun to empty a magazine into an unarmed, unconscious 16-year-old boy lying on the floor is a "good shoot".
Just note that your Charles Bronson fantasy rules will cease to apply when you encounter the legal system.
There is no legal system, You stupid fugk.
I’d give even odds on Goosey being able to lactate.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
What pull exactly does the media have?
They’ve convinced you a cop is wrong for shooting somebody that stole and tried to use a weapon on them.
They’ve convinced a ton of members of this forum to huddle in their house and wear masks in public because of a new strain of the common cold.
I have had zero exposure to the media you are referring to. I've made my mind up simply observing the video and this discussion. Yes, it was a link from FOX the evil left wing news source, but I've not been swayed one bit by the media. But, like I have mentioned we are all entitled to an opinion on whatever. I do think there's guys here swayed that because the MSM says so, it must be 100% wrong. Ok. Thanks
You are my hero
Bob
Thanks man. It means my day is a success. LOL I'm actually not too worried about the negro scum getting shot. In my younger days I had a cop, looking pretty damned serious, holding a shotgun on me. I am certain my skinny white ass would have been shot had I not done as properly instructed. LOL Watch out for crazy bitch girlfriends. Live long and prosper.
Nothing new. The news media stirred up U.S. sentiment against Spain way over 100 years ago and got us mixed up in that. Then they beat the drums until we joined World War 1 where we certainly had no business and set the stage for World War 2 which brought the whole civilized world to disaster. For that matter you can reach back and make the argument that the media fanned the smoldering coals that erupted into our uncivil war of 1861. I guess all this media agitating is being protected by the U.S. Constitution as it should be, but yes the media has plenty of pull and influence. And the media is totally abdicating its responsibility in not informing the nation about the lies being spread that there is an epidemic of black African descended Americans being murdered by police officers.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
Nope, Ersland got what he deserved. You can shoot people in self-defense, but you don't get to shoot people because you're angry with them.
"Ersland is seen grabbing a handgun from behind a counter and firing it, striking Parker in the head as he tries to put on a ski mask. Parker, who was unarmed, falls to the floor out of view of the camera.
Ersland then chases the armed man out of the store. When he returns, Ersland walks behind a counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second handgun and returns to Parker, standing over him as he fires five more shots into his torso. Medical examiner's ruled that Parker did not die from the initial shot to the head but was killed by the additional gunshot wounds."
His 16-year-old victim was also unconscious as Ersland killed him:
"But criminal law experts said self-defense has limits, particularly in this case, because Parker was unconscious when Ersland fired again.""
Go crawl back under your rock, you giggle-fu dumb phugk.
LOL!
I will stay under my rock, and you can stay in your Charles Bronson fantasy land where calmly retrieving a second gun to empty a magazine into an unarmed, unconscious 16-year-old boy lying on the floor is a "good shoot".
Just note that your Charles Bronson fantasy rules will cease to apply when you encounter the legal system.
There is no legal system, You stupid fugk.
I’d give even odds on Goosey being able to lactate.
The Okie pharmacist I remember well. Damn tragedy what Oklahoma did to him.
Nope, Ersland got what he deserved. You can shoot people in self-defense, but you don't get to shoot people because you're angry with them.
"Ersland is seen grabbing a handgun from behind a counter and firing it, striking Parker in the head as he tries to put on a ski mask. Parker, who was unarmed, falls to the floor out of view of the camera.
Ersland then chases the armed man out of the store. When he returns, Ersland walks behind a counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second handgun and returns to Parker, standing over him as he fires five more shots into his torso. Medical examiner's ruled that Parker did not die from the initial shot to the head but was killed by the additional gunshot wounds."
His 16-year-old victim was also unconscious as Ersland killed him:
"But criminal law experts said self-defense has limits, particularly in this case, because Parker was unconscious when Ersland fired again.""
Go crawl back under your rock, you giggle-fu dumb phugk.
LOL!
I will stay under my rock, and you can stay in your Charles Bronson fantasy land where calmly retrieving a second gun to empty a magazine into an unarmed, unconscious 16-year-old boy lying on the floor is a "good shoot".
Just note that your Charles Bronson fantasy rules will cease to apply when you encounter the legal system.
There is no legal system, You stupid fugk.
I’d give even odds on Goosey being able to lactate.
Any takers?
Definitely a breast pump user to facilitate a year long supply of milk
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
LOL.
Dude was 20 feet away sprinting the opposite direction with a less than lethal arm's length only device. Chit oh dear. LOL
But, they should have shot him in the earlier scuffle. That'd been much better timing, duhhh. When he's cleared, Atlanta will burn. Cheers.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
LOL.
Around here he would've been pulled out of the car and tuned up immediately.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
LOL.
Around here he would've been pulled out of the car and tuned up immediately.
That would be excellent police work. Not cuddling with him for 40 minutes like he's a good guy. They don't understand that and freak out...
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
LOL.
Dude was 20 feet away sprinting the opposite direction with a less than lethal arm's length only device. Chit oh dear. LOL
But, they should have shot him in the earlier scuffle. That'd been much better timing, duhhh. When he's cleared, Atlanta will burn. Cheers.
I'll come at this from a different angle, it's a union vs management quarrel . There are labor relation handbooks for this, and the union had best understand the rules.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
LOL.
Dude was 20 feet away sprinting the opposite direction with a less than lethal arm's length only device. Chit oh dear. LOL
But, they should have shot him in the earlier scuffle. That'd been much better timing, duhhh. When he's cleared, Atlanta will burn. Cheers.
Private Upham?
In your short time here you've added so much value.
I don't care how many times the taser can be or can't be shot. The guy is running away, Points the taser at the cop over his shoulder. Cop sees fire out of the "muzzle" and hears a pop. At this point, does the officer even know what the guy is "shooting" at him? There is going to be a certain amount of delay to the cop's reaction and the fact the perp isn't running backwards, makes the shots to the back easily understandable, So the perp shoots taser over shoulder and is turning back around as the cop fires. Pretty simple.
I'll come at this from a different angle, it's a union vs management quarrel . There are labor relation handbooks for this, and the union had best understand the rules.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
LOL.
Dude was 20 feet away sprinting the opposite direction with a less than lethal arm's length only device. Chit oh dear. LOL
But, they should have shot him in the earlier scuffle. That'd been much better timing, duhhh. When he's cleared, Atlanta will burn. Cheers.
Private Upham?
In your short time here you've added so much value.
If your posts exemplify value added, I'm good with that.
It’s mind blowing that this is even an argument on this site.
This year has really open my eyes to how much pull the media has in this country, even with a lot of right leaning people that should know better.
Thank you sir. Unbelievable that this is even an argument. That guy deserved to be shot, 100 percent. No charges should be filed, the very idea is absurd.
I don't understand how so many people can be so adamant in their stance when they don't even understand how a fugking taser works.
LOL.
Dude was 20 feet away sprinting the opposite direction with a less than lethal arm's length only device. Chit oh dear. LOL
But, they should have shot him in the earlier scuffle. That'd been much better timing, duhhh. When he's cleared, Atlanta will burn. Cheers.
Private Upham?
In your short time here you've added so much value.
If your posts exemplify value added, I'm good with that.
I just read elsewhere that the DA who announced the charges on the officer is under investigation for embezzlement of about $194,000 from his office to his personal account. Charges are soon to be filed in the investigation. Anyone else heard of this?
I just read elsewhere that the DA who announced the charges on the officer is under investigation for embezzlement of about $194,000 from his office to his personal account. Charges are soon to be filed in the investigation. Anyone else heard of this?
He has a long track record of being a dumb fugk POS.
We get all of these slowed down, slow motion videos with lots of time to question what each of the actors are doing, but does anyone know in real time, how long it took for the thug to escape the grasp of the cops and for the cop to shot him ?
I'm guessing it went to fighting for their lives, to ending the threat, took under 5 seconds !
We get all of these slowed down, slow motion videos with lots of time to question what each of the actors are doing, but does anyone know in real time, how long it took for the thug to escape the grasp of the cops and for the cop to shot him ?
I'm guessing it went to fighting for their lives, to ending the threat, took under 5 seconds !
I just read elsewhere that the DA who announced the charges on the officer is under investigation for embezzlement of about $194,000 from his office to his personal account. Charges are soon to be filed in the investigation. Anyone else heard of this?
Yep saw that and also that last year there was an incident where a white guy took a taser from Hispanic officer, Hispanic officer kills white dude and was deemed justified as it should be in both cases
State of mind ? Active,, and viable threat ? Adrenalin rush ?
Hell the SCOTUS, says its legal to kill babies at birth, so why could they find fault, in the back shooting this thug !
It says hindsight is not a factor when reviewing these type of cases and that everything will be viewed through the perspective of the officer at that moment.
State of mind ? Active,, and viable threat ? Adrenalin rush ?
Hell the SCOTUS, says its legal to kill babies at birth, so why could they find fault, in the back shooting this thug !
It says hindsight is not a factor when reviewing these type of cases and that everything will be viewed through the perspective of the officer at that moment.
In that case, the cop walks and Atlanta burns, sounds like a win - win to me !
It is nothing but sheer greed, that keeps good people, in these Sh~thole cities, surrounded by people with the culture, values and IQ of lemmings !
I just read elsewhere that the DA who announced the charges on the officer is under investigation for embezzlement of about $194,000 from his office to his personal account. Charges are soon to be filed in the investigation. Anyone else heard of this?
He has a long track record of being a dumb fugk POS.
I just read elsewhere that the DA who announced the charges on the officer is under investigation for embezzlement of about $194,000 from his office to his personal account. Charges are soon to be filed in the investigation. Anyone else heard of this?
He has a long track record of being a dumb fugk POS.
Nothing would surprise.
They need to file charges against that POS DA
Something like a bad DUI arrest, seems more appropriate !
So you guy that think the cops should not have shot this thug, do you think they should have just let him escape into the night?
Rockinbar thinks so.But he has an advanced degree and worked for nine whole years so he must know what he's talking about.
The world would be better if one of his victims would have killed him years ago.
Yes. And he should not have been sweet-talked for 40 minutes as if they were buddies and going to let him drive away. Like Ethan said, drag his ass out and beat him, then haul him in, put him back in the pen where he should have been all along.... Blah Blah..
In reference to above comment, escape into the night? Nobody has actually said, oh, wait someone might have..... He should be shot, hung, whatever. Just at the time he was shot, sprinting away at 20 feet, he was no longer a threat to the officer that shot him. We already know that folks disagree with that, my ignorant opinion. LOL. OK, BFD again. BFD BFD and BFD.
Good gawd they elected that DA there! What a chithole.
the cop should have capped him when he grabbed his partner's taser while they were on the ground, but shooting him when he turned to fire the taser was good, just didn't look good, if these guys go to trial and it's not thrown out every cop should walk off the job. hell if they take it to trial they should.
the cop should have capped him when he grabbed his partner's taser while they were on the ground, but shooting him when he turned to fire the taser was good, just didn't look good, if these guys go to trial and it's not thrown out every cop should walk off the job. hell if they take it to trial they should.
You obviously need an advanced degree.
If you have a warrant and come back a couple months after you get your ass kicked and have some equipment stolen they just jump right into the squad.
the cop should have capped him when he grabbed his partner's taser while they were on the ground, but shooting him when he turned to fire the taser was good, just didn't look good, if these guys go to trial and it's not thrown out every cop should walk off the job. hell if they take it to trial they should.
You obviously need an advanced degree.
If you have a warrant and come back a couple months after you get your ass kicked and have some equipment stolen they just jump right into the squad.
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/l1ug3xGEN1oZBT7qw/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/KupdfnqWwV7J6/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from vignette.wikia.nocookie.net]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/savingprivateryan/images/c/c0/Untitled_395207.jpg)
