Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

MDM lies a lot, even blatant lies that are easily shown by simply watching the videos.

Brooks did the following:

Blocked traffic, misdemeanor

Driving drunk, Felony

Resist arrest with violence, Felony

Fights and take a Police firearm, Felony

Runs away while being told to stop running away, misdemeanor

Points firearm and fires at a police officer, Felony

Brooks committed so many crimes in minutes, that negros ignore over and over to scream about Brooks being killed, while ignoring his assault and intent to murder two police officers.

That is how fucked up negros have become these days.

Tasers are NOT firearms.

 

[Meathead]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

no he did not.

The cop dropped his Taser after Brroks shot the taser he took ( and missed by a mile) the cop then dropped his taser pulled his weapon and shot Brooks in the back as he was running away

Sure, and Big Mike had his hands up and shouted don't shoot. Idiots will believe anything.

Watch the video.

I did. The thug fired first, not the cop.

Fired a NONLETHAL taser and missed by a mile. He was no longer a threat after that.

The video is there. The thug got himself killed just like Big Mike and Trayvon. It's not out first rodeo, but this one's recorded, so bullshit.

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

Actually in many states LEO are authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing felon.

And and even though that is true many departments policies are different.

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

The law gives police officers latitude to use deadly force when they feel physically endangered, but there's far less legal flexibility when it comes to opening fire at fleeing individuals. Here's a look at legal issues raised by Saturday's police shooting in South Carolina.

www.pbs.org

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?


Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

was there any reason to think Brooks while unarmed and running away was a danger to anyone else in the community? He certainly was no longer a danger to the cops.

Yes. His willingness to use violence against armed police to avoid capture demonstrates an even higher risk to the general public.

No it doesn't.

That's just an excuse to shoot an unarmed man in the back. And once again it's an excuse that wouldn't work for a civilian and the cops should not be held to a lower standard than civilians but rather a higher one

I'd fine with it as a juror.

You actually think if you shot an unarmed man in the back that a self defense claim would stand in court? If you do you're dumber than I thought

 

[Blues Man]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

no he did not.

The cop dropped his Taser after Brroks shot the taser he took ( and missed by a mile) the cop then dropped his taser pulled his weapon and shot Brooks in the back as he was running away

Sure, and Big Mike had his hands up and shouted don't shoot. Idiots will believe anything.

Watch the video.

I did. The thug fired first, not the cop.

Fired a NONLETHAL taser and missed by a mile. He was no longer a threat after that.

The video is there. The thug got himself killed just like Big Mike and Trayvon. It's not out first rodeo, but this one's recorded, so bullshit.

Yes it was recorded that the cops shot a man in the back AFTER he dropped his weapon and ran

 

[Vastator]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

Actually in many states LEO are authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing felon.

And and even though that is true many departments policies are different.

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

The law gives police officers latitude to use deadly force when they feel physically endangered, but there's far less legal flexibility when it comes to opening fire at fleeing individuals. Here's a look at legal issues raised by Saturday's police shooting in South Carolina.

www.pbs.org

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?


Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

was there any reason to think Brooks while unarmed and running away was a danger to anyone else in the community? He certainly was no longer a danger to the cops.

Yes. His willingness to use violence against armed police to avoid capture demonstrates an even higher risk to the general public.

No it doesn't.

That's just an excuse to shoot an unarmed man in the back. And once again it's an excuse that wouldn't work for a civilian and the cops should not be held to a lower standard than civilians but rather a higher one

I'd fine with it as a juror.

You actually think if you shot an unarmed man in the back that a self defense claim would stand in court? If you do you're dumber than I thought

With this video, as a juror. Absolutely. Not Guilty all day long.

 

[Rambunctious]

MDM lies a lot, even blatant lies that are easily shown by simply watching the videos.

Brooks did the following:

Blocked traffic, misdemeanor

Driving drunk, Felony

Resist arrest with violence, Felony

Fights and take a Police firearm, Felony

Runs away while being told to stop running away, misdemeanor

Points firearm and fires at a police officer, Felony

Brooks committed so many crimes in minutes, that negros ignore over and over to scream about Brooks being killed, while ignoring his assault and intent to murder two police officers.

That is how fucked up negros have become these days.

Tasers are NOT firearms.

A CHP officer got into a fight with a guy not far from my home a couple of years ago...in the scuffle the guy grabbed the officers taser and shot the cop with it then he reached down and took the officers hand gun and ran off...that cop is lucky to be alive.....thank God all he lost was his weapon but who knows where that gun ended up....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public the minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

You cannot predict the future.

And I'm not disagreeing that he should have just complied.

The fact is the cop shot an unarmed man in the back.

That is never OK

What I saw was a cop shooting a guy who was aiming at him and would be loose in public with a dangerous weapon. Yay cop!

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public the minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

You cannot predict the future.

And I'm not disagreeing that he should have just complied.

The fact is the cop shot an unarmed man in the back.

That is never OK

What I saw was a cop shooting a guy who was aiming at him and would be loose in public with a dangerous weapon. Yay cop!

You saw wrong.

Brooks did discharge a Taser but the shot missed by a mile he then dropped it and ran.

And after the Taser was discharged it was useless since a new cartridge needed to be installed before it could be fired again. And since Brooks dropped it there was no way he could use it on anyone else even if he did steal a bunch of new cartridges from the cop (which he didn't).

The cop stopped dropped his own Taser pulled his service weapon and fired 3 shots 2 of which hit Brooks in the back while he was unarmed and running away

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public the minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

You cannot predict the future.

And I'm not disagreeing that he should have just complied.

The fact is the cop shot an unarmed man in the back.

That is never OK

What I saw was a cop shooting a guy who was aiming at him and would be loose in public with a dangerous weapon. Yay cop!

You saw wrong.

Brooks did discharge a Taser but the shot missed by a mile he then dropped it and ran.

And after the Taser was discharged it was useless since a new cartridge needed to be installed before it could be fired again. And since Brooks dropped it there was no way he could use it on anyone else even if he did steal a bunch of new cartridges from the cop (which he didn't).

The cop stopped dropped his own Taser pulled his service weapon and fired 3 shots 2 of which hit Brooks in the back while he was unarmed and running away

Maybe the cop didn’t see the weapon dropped. I didn’t. All he has to go on is the immediate threat and the potential threat. Yay cop!

 

[Doc7505]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

~~~~~~~
They were in persuit of a felon who resisted arrest and was in possesion of a stolen police weapon.

 

[Meathead]

MDM lies a lot, even blatant lies that are easily shown by simply watching the videos.

Brooks did the following:

Blocked traffic, misdemeanor

Driving drunk, Felony

Resist arrest with violence, Felony

Fights and take a Police firearm, Felony

Runs away while being told to stop running away, misdemeanor

Points firearm and fires at a police officer, Felony

Brooks committed so many crimes in minutes, that negros ignore over and over to scream about Brooks being killed, while ignoring his assault and intent to murder two police officers.

That is how fucked up negros have become these days.

Tasers are NOT firearms.

Tasers are weapons and only idiots would point one at an armed man, no less a cop you've been fighting with.

 

[Blues Man]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

~~~~~~~
They were in persuit of a felon who resisted arrest and was in possesion of a stolen police weapon.

he was no longer in possession of that Taser when he was shot.

The cop saw him drop the taser and run . The cop then shot an unarmed man in the back

 

[Blues Man]

MDM lies a lot, even blatant lies that are easily shown by simply watching the videos.

Brooks did the following:

Blocked traffic, misdemeanor

Driving drunk, Felony

Resist arrest with violence, Felony

Fights and take a Police firearm, Felony

Runs away while being told to stop running away, misdemeanor

Points firearm and fires at a police officer, Felony

Brooks committed so many crimes in minutes, that negros ignore over and over to scream about Brooks being killed, while ignoring his assault and intent to murder two police officers.

That is how fucked up negros have become these days.

Tasers are NOT firearms.

Tasers are weapons and only idiots would point one at an armed man, no less a cop you've been fighting with.

And once the taser was fired ( and the shot missed the cop by a mile) it was dropped by Brooks therefore the cop shot an unarmed man in the back as he was running away

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

~~~~~~~
They were in persuit of a felon who resisted arrest and was in possesion of a stolen police weapon.

he was no longer in possession of that Taser when he was shot.

The cop saw him drop the taser and run . The cop then shot an unarmed man in the back

You saw exactly what the cop saw? Amazing!

 

[Meathead]

MDM lies a lot, even blatant lies that are easily shown by simply watching the videos.

Brooks did the following:

Blocked traffic, misdemeanor

Driving drunk, Felony

Resist arrest with violence, Felony

Fights and take a Police firearm, Felony

Runs away while being told to stop running away, misdemeanor

Points firearm and fires at a police officer, Felony

Brooks committed so many crimes in minutes, that negros ignore over and over to scream about Brooks being killed, while ignoring his assault and intent to murder two police officers.

That is how fucked up negros have become these days.

Tasers are NOT firearms.

Tasers are weapons and only idiots would point one at an armed man, no less a cop you've been fighting with.

And once the taser was fired ( and the shot missed the cop by a mile) it was dropped by Brooks therefore the cop shot an unarmed man in the back as he was running away

The thug fired first and got killed. That's it. There will be no prosecution regardless of your interpretation or your whining.

Go back to George Floyd. There you got another dead thug but an actual case.

 

[Blues Man]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

~~~~~~~
They were in persuit of a felon who resisted arrest and was in possesion of a stolen police weapon.

he was no longer in possession of that Taser when he was shot.

The cop saw him drop the taser and run . The cop then shot an unarmed man in the back

You saw exactly what the cop saw? Amazing!

Yeah an unarmed man running away.

 

[Blues Man]

MDM lies a lot, even blatant lies that are easily shown by simply watching the videos.

Brooks did the following:

Blocked traffic, misdemeanor

Driving drunk, Felony

Resist arrest with violence, Felony

Fights and take a Police firearm, Felony

Runs away while being told to stop running away, misdemeanor

Points firearm and fires at a police officer, Felony

Brooks committed so many crimes in minutes, that negros ignore over and over to scream about Brooks being killed, while ignoring his assault and intent to murder two police officers.

That is how fucked up negros have become these days.

Tasers are NOT firearms.

Tasers are weapons and only idiots would point one at an armed man, no less a cop you've been fighting with.

And once the taser was fired ( and the shot missed the cop by a mile) it was dropped by Brooks therefore the cop shot an unarmed man in the back as he was running away

The thug fired first and got killed. That's it. There will be no prosecution regardless of your interpretation or your whining.

Go back to George Floyd. There you got another dead thug but an actual case.

The cop will be charged with homicide of one degree or another.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

~~~~~~~
They were in persuit of a felon who resisted arrest and was in possesion of a stolen police weapon.

he was no longer in possession of that Taser when he was shot.

The cop saw him drop the taser and run . The cop then shot an unarmed man in the back

You saw exactly what the cop saw? Amazing!

Yeah an unarmed man running away.

You just want to see what you want to see.

 

[Doc7505]

MDM lies a lot, even blatant lies that are easily shown by simply watching the videos.

Brooks did the following:

Blocked traffic, misdemeanor

Driving drunk, Felony

Resist arrest with violence, Felony

Fights and take a Police firearm, Felony

Runs away while being told to stop running away, misdemeanor

Points firearm and fires at a police officer, Felony

Brooks committed so many crimes in minutes, that negros ignore over and over to scream about Brooks being killed, while ignoring his assault and intent to murder two police officers.

That is how fucked up negros have become these days.

Tasers are NOT firearms.

Not according to the DA that stated it was a deadly weapon.....

 

[Pilot1]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.