[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

My attitude is realistic, not pie in the sky and and not exaggerated. And I hope it is shared by many. My opinion is educated and it is fair. AND It is as I say; realistic. There is so much rhetoric and propaganda being circulated about things that have nothing to do with race...just common sense.

And then there are those who refuse to recognize, or want to totally ignore/hide from the fact...that race DOES play a big part.

One only has to read the foster mom's post...to quickly realize that.

But thanks...for your opinion.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

And then there are those who refuse to recognize, or want to totally ignore/hide from the fact...that race DOES play a big part.

One only has to read the foster mom's post...to quickly realize that.

But thanks...for your opinion.

I think she is wrong. I know of a person who fostered six children. (I don't know her well) She was a social worker and her husband sells insurance. I don't think she did it for the money, not at all, but I think those kids, who had all kinds of issues to begin with, would have been much better off if there were only a couple or three of them in the home. You just replace one bunch of not good things with another bunch of not good things if you have too many children who need you desperately. Yes it is a nice thing on the face of it, but the interaction and the teaching and the attention to each child is way more than the "normal" parent child situation.

It is another complex situation that there is no real answer. I think drugs are a huge part of most broken up homes where children are away from their birth parents.

People who do not really know what they are talking about when it comes to the needs of dependent children often make summary judgements about dependent children that causes them more harm than good. The world is a mess and it isn't caused primarily by race in my opinion. Most of the dire situations are caused by addiction to drugs.

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by B767drvr

Seems like a common thread to all of these deaths is NOT COOPERATING with the police. Quit attacking cops, save your story for the judge, and everyone lives. There are approximately 60 MILLION interactions per year between police and civilians (over 16). Obviously, lots of people are cooperating, but some CHOOSE TO NOT COOPERATE. I wonder why?

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty?

[manaboutown]

Here are some interesting background facts on the up for re-election DA prosecuting this case who refers to a powerful 50,000V police taser as a deadly weapon when fired at protesters but not at police officers. He is being investigated for stealing $140,000 and sexual harassment. Too, isn't a grand jury required for an indictment for murder in Georgia?

Atlanta DA prosecuting officer Garrett Rolfe is under criminal investigation for corruption - YouTube

Fulton County DA Paul Howard accused of sexual harassment | 11alive.com

How A Grand Jury Works In Georgia | 90.1 FM WABE

[stadry]

last month the fulton cty dist atty said a taser is a felony,,, this month its a different story

[B767drvr]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty?

Not sure what point you're attempting to make, why you addressed it to my comments, or how it pertains to this thread?

The hypothetical you presented and what occurred with Mr. Brooks are worlds apart, but I think you know that.

[eyc234]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty?

With the facts as presented you are guilty. There is no threat to your safety or health. In the great state of TX we have the Castle Doctrine, you can use deadly force to protect home and it's inhabitants from intruders without the need to retreat. If you are in your yard and are attacked you do not have to back away, you may protect yourself and property. If they are running away you did not shoot soon enough!! Just kidding, do not have a cow. Come on a little humor a great tension reliever.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty?

If I am on the jury, you would be acquitted.

[Byte1]

Where I come from, a perp robbed a mini mart at a gas station and as he was running away, a COP shot him and was able to make the arrest. The perp was shot through the back, the round hit the ribs following them around to the front. He was transported to the hospital where he recovered and was tried in court. The only trouble the COP got into was that he shot the perp with a wad cutter round (for target shooting) that he had been using at the range that day and had forgotten to change back to his hollow points. If he would have shot the guy with a full metal jacket or a hollow point, more than likely the perp would have been dead and saved the state some money. He did get promoted a short time later and it was well deserved. He was an excellent COP.
Oh, I failed to mention that the perp was armed and did make a couple shots over his shoulder as he ran away.

[Steve9930]

This horse has been beat to death. Time to close this thread!

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty?

Best thing to do is shoot him and drag him into your house.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

This horse has been beat to death. Time to close this thread!

The horse is still thrashing just a bit got to make sure we finish the job.

[B767drvr]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

The horse is still thrashing just a bit got to make sure we finish the job.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

This horse has been beat to death. Time to close this thread!

Neigh!

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Dahabs

My quick answer is absolutely. Five years ago I might have said no but I have since read up on the issue and see it much differently.

I think previous interactions with LEOs might have impacted Mr Brooks actions/reactions. Of course we cannot ask him now.

I don't think that is the case. Mr. Brooks was on probation. He was driving while drunk and passed out in a drive thru. That is why he tried to flee. That is how I see it. You may see it a different way.