Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[Taz]

Pass a law that says if you resist arrest, you will be shot. End of story.

Great Idea... Death Penalty for resisting arrest

Now you know why the officers tried to talk him down for 41 minutes prior to the incident. They didn't come there fully intent on killing him because he was drunk.

That also brings up the fact that bodycam footage shows Officer Rolfe giving the guy CPR and trying to keep him alive. I don't know of any murderers who do that.

The officer was trying to re-inflate his police career.

 

[RealDave]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

Curiously, the police HAVE addressed the issue and that is why the Atlanta officer was carrying a taser. Unfortunately, the perp Brooks took it from him and tried to used it against the police leaving the officer no other option than reaching for his gun to protect himself.

I just can't wait until an officer lets an assailant get away on the grounds that he didn't seem to impose no "IMMEDIATE IMMINENT THREAT" at the instant of struggling with and getting away from the police, but then goes on to kill his girlfriend, family or others. My O my I can't want to hear the media raucus, complaints, lawsuits and accusations of POLICE INCOMPETENCE and LIABILITY!

Because DUIs always kill their family after they escape custody.

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyone?

Anyone??

Hello, is this thing on? Did my internet go out?

He was shot in the back. Running away.

He was shot in the back running away . . . and firing a weapon at the cop behind him.

That last part is sorta important.

Rarely lethal, with a limited range. They could have opted not to shoot him but follow at a distance or pick him up later with reinforcements. He was drunk.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure Atlanta police procedure doesn't give them an "option" on just letting someone who's committed multiple felonies run away.

Perhaps that is where procedure surrounding the use of deadly force needs to be re-examined. He wasn’t someone with a record of violence and he wasn’t armed with a gun, and they had his car and id.

All of that becomes meaningless when he starts attacking the police trying to arrest him. The 41 minutes he spent being cooperative mean nothing after that. Having his car and his ID was also meaningless. He was a threat as soon as he secured the taser. He was an even greater threat when he fired it at Rolfe. He had a partially loaded taser and was attempting to flee into the larger community with it.

You seem to think that having his car and his ID would have stopped him from becoming violent, from making the choices he would later make. Had those officers exercised that kind of naivete in that situation, they would have both been injured or killed.

The 41 minutes which preceeded the scuffle do NOT become meaningless. In fact, those 41 minutes are going to be critical in demonstrating that Mr. Brooks was just a guy, trying to get home, and the officers were NOT going to let that happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Common sense is incompatible with being drunk.

Add his being incoherent to his threat risk.

Case in point. What makes you think he was going to be cooperative thereafter after resisting his arrest and stealing a taser? You don't reason with incoherent violent threats, you stop them from becoming even greater threats. To you, to the community.

What evidence do you have that he is a threat to the community? That he will be a greater threat? So your only option is to kill him? We aren’t talking about a violent felon who has killed or raped people right?

How many times do police have to go and hunt a suspect and arrest him? They do it all the time. When he sobers up, he is likely to be more rational.

You need more evidence that he's a threat to the community than him assaulting two cops? Or that he started all of this by driving while shitfaced drunk?

NO ONE is a violent felon who has killed and raped people . . . until they are.

Yes, cops have to go and hunt suspects all the time . . . when they don't already have the guy RIGHT THERE. And shockingly, the first concern in policing is not "when it's convenient for him and he feels like cooperating".

I keep thinking you could not possibly get more utterly retarded and useless, and you keep proving me wrong.

So he just walked up to two cops and assaulted them?

NO ONE is a violent felon who has killed and raped people . . . until they are....well, using that rational, that would justify shooting anyone...regardless of record or past behavior.

You continue to be utterly illogical and out of contact with reality.

Who cares what he was doing before he assaulted them? The operative point is that he DID assault them.

"That would justify shooting anyone." Only in the twisted drug haze that passes for your mind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

No, you've just decided that you want to pretend you have a reason for ignoring anything that isn't what you want to hear.

Why are YOU so afraid of openly examining the consequences of bad choices?

The problem isn't that I don't want to examine deadly force; it's that I completely reject YOUR ability to contribute anything useful to the discussion, or to any discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do not think charges of murder are appropriate, but I do think the question of when lethal force force should be used IS and should be addressed. To quote another poster, “anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to be allowed out without a babysitter”. There are too many incidents like this.

Oh, I KNOW you did not just try to misquote me condemning your asinine bullshit in an attempt to justify it. Try using the WHOLE quote:

Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

Thanks for demonstrating the dishonest sleaze of the left.

And thanks for demonstrating you shouldn’t be allowed out without a babysitter.

Uh huh. Hope you recover soon from whatever traumatic head injury you suffered.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally? And they knew he was impaired.

Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally. That'd be why they were arresting him, and why they couldn't just let him take off into the night.

Why do YOU think that getting yourself shitfaced drunk gives you a free pass on whatever asinine thing you do afterward?

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

Curiously, the police HAVE addressed the issue and that is why the Atlanta officer was carrying a taser. Unfortunately, the perp Brooks took it from him and tried to used it against the police leaving the officer no other option than reaching for his gun to protect himself.

I just can't wait until an officer lets an assailant get away on the grounds that he didn't seem to impose no "IMMEDIATE IMMINENT THREAT" at the instant of struggling with and getting away from the police, but then goes on to kill his girlfriend, family or others. My O my I can't want to hear the media raucus, complaints, lawsuits and accusations of POLICE INCOMPETENCE and LIABILITY!

Because DUIs always kill their family after they escape custody.

No, but can you say that DUIs who assault police officers to avoid arrest and who have a history of domestic violence and child abuse NEVER kill their families after they escape custody?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone?

Anyone??

Hello, is this thing on? Did my internet go out?

He was shot in the back. Running away.

He was shot in the back running away . . . and firing a weapon at the cop behind him.

That last part is sorta important.

Rarely lethal, with a limited range. They could have opted not to shoot him but follow at a distance or pick him up later with reinforcements. He was drunk.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure Atlanta police procedure doesn't give them an "option" on just letting someone who's committed multiple felonies run away.

Perhaps that is where procedure surrounding the use of deadly force needs to be re-examined. He wasn’t someone with a record of violence and he wasn’t armed with a gun, and they had his car and id.

All of that becomes meaningless when he starts attacking the police trying to arrest him. The 41 minutes he spent being cooperative mean nothing after that. Having his car and his ID was also meaningless. He was a threat as soon as he secured the taser. He was an even greater threat when he fired it at Rolfe. He had a partially loaded taser and was attempting to flee into the larger community with it.

You seem to think that having his car and his ID would have stopped him from becoming violent, from making the choices he would later make. Had those officers exercised that kind of naivete in that situation, they would have both been injured or killed.

The 41 minutes which preceeded the scuffle do NOT become meaningless. In fact, those 41 minutes are going to be critical in demonstrating that Mr. Brooks was just a guy, trying to get home, and the officers were NOT going to let that happen.

No, they're meaningless. If Mr. Brooks was "just a guy, trying to get home", then getting shitfaced drunk and passing out in a drive-through lane is NOT the way to go about it, and you're absolutely fucking right the officers were not going to let that happen, nor should they have been.

 

[Coyote]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

Curiously, the police HAVE addressed the issue and that is why the Atlanta officer was carrying a taser. Unfortunately, the perp Brooks took it from him and tried to used it against the police leaving the officer no other option than reaching for his gun to protect himself.

I just can't wait until an officer lets an assailant get away on the grounds that he didn't seem to impose no "IMMEDIATE IMMINENT THREAT" at the instant of struggling with and getting away from the police, but then goes on to kill his girlfriend, family or others. My O my I can't want to hear the media raucus, complaints, lawsuits and accusations of POLICE INCOMPETENCE and LIABILITY!

Because DUIs always kill their family after they escape custody.

No, but can you say that DUIs who assault police officers to avoid arrest and who have a history of domestic violence and child abuse NEVER kill their families after they escape custody?

You can never say never about anything. Using your logic we should shot jaywalkers who run from police.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally? And they knew he was impaired.

Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally. That'd be why they were arresting him, and why they couldn't just let him take off into the night.

Why do YOU think that getting yourself shitfaced drunk gives you a free pass on whatever asinine thing you do afterward?

They were not arresting him because he was intoxicated.

They were arresting him because he was dui and broke probation.

Do they arrest all intoxicated people because they might behave irrationally?

 

[Coyote]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

No, you've just decided that you want to pretend you have a reason for ignoring anything that isn't what you want to hear.

Why are YOU so afraid of openly examining the consequences of bad choices?

The problem isn't that I don't want to examine deadly force; it's that I completely reject YOUR ability to contribute anything useful to the discussion, or to any discussion.

You have yet to openly examine the use of deadly force in any discussion here.

Care to try again?

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

Curiously, the police HAVE addressed the issue and that is why the Atlanta officer was carrying a taser. Unfortunately, the perp Brooks took it from him and tried to used it against the police leaving the officer no other option than reaching for his gun to protect himself.

I just can't wait until an officer lets an assailant get away on the grounds that he didn't seem to impose no "IMMEDIATE IMMINENT THREAT" at the instant of struggling with and getting away from the police, but then goes on to kill his girlfriend, family or others. My O my I can't want to hear the media raucus, complaints, lawsuits and accusations of POLICE INCOMPETENCE and LIABILITY!

Because DUIs always kill their family after they escape custody.

No, but can you say that DUIs who assault police officers to avoid arrest and who have a history of domestic violence and child abuse NEVER kill their families after they escape custody?

You can never say never about anything. Using your logic we should shot jaywalkers who run from police.

No, that would using your pathetic understanding of the logic, since that's not what I said. That's just what your Swiss cheese brain came up with when it tried to think.

Probably best if you go give it a nice long rest from all that unusual activity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally? And they knew he was impaired.

Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally. That'd be why they were arresting him, and why they couldn't just let him take off into the night.

Why do YOU think that getting yourself shitfaced drunk gives you a free pass on whatever asinine thing you do afterward?

They were not arresting him because he was intoxicated.

They were arresting him because he was dui and broke probation.

Do they arrest all intoxicated people because they might behave irrationally?

What in the actual fuck is it that you "think" this has to do with the conversation taking place?

This is going to be a waste of time, because you are clearly even more irrational and ignorant than normal (which I would have thought was impossible), but let me explain what was said that you promptly forgot because of your healing lobotomy:

"Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally?"

"Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally."

As you can see - or would be able to see, if you weren't Coyote and dumber than a glob of spit on a sidewalk - the specific topic at the moment was drunk people and whether they're rational. Running off down a tangent about "But they were arresting him for THIS" is therefore even more useless than what usually comes out of you. "They were arresting him because he was dui", you say. What do you think DUI stands for? That would be "driving under the influence". Under the influence of what? ALCOHOL, you pusillanimous evolutionary reject. It wasn't the driving part of that they were arresting him for; it was the "under the influence" part that made it a crime.

Either attempt to stay somewhere within a mile of rational and conscious, or do everyone a big favor and stop trying to pretend you have something to contribute.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

No, you've just decided that you want to pretend you have a reason for ignoring anything that isn't what you want to hear.

Why are YOU so afraid of openly examining the consequences of bad choices?

The problem isn't that I don't want to examine deadly force; it's that I completely reject YOUR ability to contribute anything useful to the discussion, or to any discussion.

You have yet to openly examine the use of deadly force in any discussion here.

Care to try again?

You have yet to be someone who deserves to be part of a serious conversation, so would YOU care to try again?

Or at least stop flattering yourself that anyone's been "trying" to talk to you like you're a person. We're still back at you being a shit-flinging monkey with a keyboard.

 

[Coyote]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

No, you've just decided that you want to pretend you have a reason for ignoring anything that isn't what you want to hear.

Why are YOU so afraid of openly examining the consequences of bad choices?

The problem isn't that I don't want to examine deadly force; it's that I completely reject YOUR ability to contribute anything useful to the discussion, or to any discussion.

You have yet to openly examine the use of deadly force in any discussion here.

Care to try again?

You have yet to be someone who deserves to be part of a serious conversation, so would YOU care to try again?

Or at least stop flattering yourself that anyone's been "trying" to talk to you like you're a person. We're still back at you being a shit-flinging monkey with a keyboard.

Please, keep impressing us. Your valuable and marginally articulate contributions to this discussion are duly noted as is your complete lack of interest in even a minimal examination of what could a pattern in this country, of over reliance on lethal force.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally? And they knew he was impaired.

Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally. That'd be why they were arresting him, and why they couldn't just let him take off into the night.

Why do YOU think that getting yourself shitfaced drunk gives you a free pass on whatever asinine thing you do afterward?

They were not arresting him because he was intoxicated.

They were arresting him because he was dui and broke probation.

Do they arrest all intoxicated people because they might behave irrationally?

What in the actual fuck is it that you "think" this has to do with the conversation taking place?

This is going to be a waste of time, because you are clearly even more irrational and ignorant than normal (which I would have thought was impossible), but let me explain what was said that you promptly forgot because of your healing lobotomy:

"Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally?"

"Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally."

As you can see - or would be able to see, if you weren't Coyote and dumber than a glob of spit on a sidewalk - the specific topic at the moment was drunk people and whether they're rational. Running off down a tangent about "But they were arresting him for THIS" is therefore even more useless than what usually comes out of you. "They were arresting him because he was dui", you say. What do you think DUI stands for? That would be "driving under the influence". Under the influence of what? ALCOHOL, you pusillanimous evolutionary reject. It wasn't the driving part of that they were arresting him for; it was the "under the influence" part that made it a crime.

Either attempt to stay somewhere within a mile of rational and conscious, or do everyone a big favor and stop trying to pretend you have something to contribute.

You seem to think that someone who is drunk should be gunned down simply because they might behave irrationally and murder an entire family despite the fact they lack any weapon and have no history of such behavior. Keep trying.

 

[Meathead]

You seem to think that someone who is drunk should be gunned down simply because they might behave irrationally and murder an entire family despite the fact they lack any weapon and have no history of such behavior. Keep trying.

Well, assaulting a cop and trying to shoot him could be considered irrational.

 

[Coyote]

You seem to think that someone who is drunk should be gunned down simply because they might behave irrationally and murder an entire family despite the fact they lack any weapon and have no history of such behavior. Keep trying.

Well, assaulting a cop and trying to shoot him could be considered irrational.

Sure. And no one is making the argument that he was rational. But use a taser is not the same as a gun and it is a big jump going from that to assuming he is going to go slaughter a family.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally? And they knew he was impaired.

Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally. That'd be why they were arresting him, and why they couldn't just let him take off into the night.

Why do YOU think that getting yourself shitfaced drunk gives you a free pass on whatever asinine thing you do afterward?

They were not arresting him because he was intoxicated.

They were arresting him because he was dui and broke probation.

Do they arrest all intoxicated people because they might behave irrationally?

What in the actual fuck is it that you "think" this has to do with the conversation taking place?

This is going to be a waste of time, because you are clearly even more irrational and ignorant than normal (which I would have thought was impossible), but let me explain what was said that you promptly forgot because of your healing lobotomy:

"Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally?"

"Pretty sure they DON'T expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally."

As you can see - or would be able to see, if you weren't Coyote and dumber than a glob of spit on a sidewalk - the specific topic at the moment was drunk people and whether they're rational. Running off down a tangent about "But they were arresting him for THIS" is therefore even more useless than what usually comes out of you. "They were arresting him because he was dui", you say. What do you think DUI stands for? That would be "driving under the influence". Under the influence of what? ALCOHOL, you pusillanimous evolutionary reject. It wasn't the driving part of that they were arresting him for; it was the "under the influence" part that made it a crime.

Either attempt to stay somewhere within a mile of rational and conscious, or do everyone a big favor and stop trying to pretend you have something to contribute.

Have to admit, I love your vocabulary, it’s miles above most here where insults rarely expand beyond four letters and references to bodily functions.

So...do you actually want to seriously discuss or should we just keep flinging insults at each other? How about an olive branch for a moment?

I do not believe the officers involved should be charged. Despite my insults (shit flinging), I agree this is not the same as the situation with Floyd. But it is part of several larger issues imo: when to use lethal force and the overuse of lethal force in this country, and the higher probability of African American men ending up dead as a result of police interactions. Seems to me this is a discussion worth having. It is not a new problem. The prior DoJ started taking steps to work with problematic police departments who had a record of bad policing. In addition, police departments who recognized problems in their department were encouraged to and actively did, reach out to the DoJ for help. Steps in the right direction. But that ended under the current administration with its disbanding of the programs and reform priorities and it’s pro-anything-goes support of the police. You said in one post (paraphrasing) - what makes you think reform isn’t going on? I am sure it is, in some places, but clearly not in others (case in point, the killing of Ahmed Arbury and the police department that handled it). How long should people have to wait for it When they see relatives needlessly being killed? Philanders Castile? Freddie Gray? Breonna Taylor? Floyd?

You think lethal force was justified in this case. I disagree. If other countries manage to keep violent crime to rates equivalent to or even lower than ours with far less use of lethal force, why can’t we seem to? We militarize our police as a means of getting rid of surplus equipment, we spend far time training officers in the use of lethal force as opposed to de-escalation... maybe this should be rethought?