Originally Posted by anothersteve (Post 1784940)

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1784936)

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1784948)

:1rotfl:


It's funny how some people skip right over questions...they don't want to (and can't) answer. :boom:

Originally Posted by anothersteve (Post 1784951)

Originally Posted by anothersteve (Post 1784940)

The taser was fired at them twice. Watch the video very carefully please.
Steve

Originally Posted by karostay (Post 1784794)

CNN he was an outstanding father..Even though he was drunk and passed out in the drive through lane

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1784718)

He probably deserved it. Probably saved his family and many citizens of this country a lot of pain. He saved the taxpayer a lot of money for court and jail time. It was not murder though, unless you know something that no one else knows and the COP knew him and plotted to kill him. I am sure that like others, his family will cash in on this. Probably the only good thing he did for them.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1784339)

Originally Posted by joseppe (Post 1784993)

The officer who shot him had a weapon pointed at him. He could only Presume it was the Taser that was taken from him, but couldn't the perp have also grabbed the other officer's gun during the scuffle? Point a weapon of any type at a police officer and that police officer is going to assume his life is in danger. Try pointing an a BB gun at a police officer. What do you think the response should be? Can you tell a taser from a BB gun from a Glock being pointed at you in a split second from some distance at night? I think I would have fired my weapon also.

Originally Posted by MEbner2805 (Post 1784905)

WoW so nice to get a real experienced viewpoint on this and thank you a bunch for chiming in to educate us all! The cop clearly should have handled it differently and it’s a shame too many of them are seemingly shooting out of feeling disrespected. I wonder about the training program if the cops are operating off emotion all the time like this and destroying their lives and others who don’t deserve to die?
Much respect and god bless all our police forces for what they go through.

Originally Posted by nn0wheremann (Post 1785029)

Yes if the taser is iridescent yellow, and the police issued firearms are black, and if I had already determined he was unarmed.

Originally Posted by MEbner2805 (Post 1784895)

I don’t feel that was a justified killing. I think shoot the perp in the leg to stop them but not in the body! I feel cops don’t realize the damage a bullet does to a body. Criminals are terrible but cops must handle them properly and stop shooting them for simple disrespect! That’s the reason cops are shooting people and it’s not acceptable.

Originally Posted by nn0wheremann (Post 1785023)

Well said. Drunkenness is not a hanging offense. Running from police is not a hanging offense. They had his car, his identification and could go arrest him when he was calmed down.

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 1784978)

I leave it to the law and the courts to sort out the why's, wherefore's, justification, and fact from fiction.

Below is the post I commented on, and the only thing I commented on, and found shameful.
I still consider it so.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1784348)

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1785237)

from what I saw and from my experience in law enforcement,

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 1785270)

When you shoot someone twice in back it’s murder

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 1785270)

When you shoot someone twice in back it’s murder you can go 123 or manslaughter but it’s murder

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1784835)

Jesus was not a COP and they didn't have guns in those days. A drunken anybody could have killed anyone's family while operating a motor vehicle. Guess he would not have been called a "frightened poor sheep" by MADD.

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ (Post 1784862)

Shameful? That you feel the officers in these situations should be given the benefit of the doubt when their lives were not in danger. . The deceased should not be deceased.

Read a state trooper’s take on this, as a law enforcement officer, somewhere in this thread. If you think all police, all doctors, all teachers, all nurses, etc. should be given the benefit of the doubt as well, I don’t agree. We should trust these professionals based on their duties to society, but it’s a bit narrow-minded if you don’t believe there are a few bad apples in any bunch, as was just proven, but we should give them all the benefit of the doubt because they’re police officers! It’s situational; a man was kneed in the throat and died as a result. The other one was shot—while the officers’ lives weren’t in any danger. They were chasing the guy- they weren’t being chased. You may have the opinion that the scum of the earth may be always be so, but it’s wrong to believe that they should have been killed.., especially for their past criminal activity, and especially if they served time for those crimes. Every criminal is NOT WORTHLESS; some can be rehabilitated. If there are other options- which there clearly were, they should not have killed him. No one has the time to stop everything and look into their entire criminal background. What if they weren’t criminals?

In the recent killings, although having criminal backgrounds, they weren’t committing a murder, rape, armed robbery.... or assault with a deadly weapon. There were no warrants out for their rests because of those violent crimes, either. They weren’t even carrying guns. They didn’t deserve to die as they did. The officers were in no immediate danger.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1785313)

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1784876)

My bad...thank you. :o

While I admire your public bravery, you do realize what you've now done though...don't you?

You have now gained innumerable enemies...from my "fan club." :D

And durn it, what really sucks is that so many of them are really in deep arrears...with their monthly fan club dues. :1rotfl:


:ho:

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1784936)

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 1785328)

Everyone deserves a fair trial and presumed innocent that doesn’t mean the officer shouldn’t be charged , the coroner has said that the bullets entered the back ( of course everything they in the villages is fake news unless it isn’t ) but back , front or side under any rules of any police department , there was no justification for shooting . In 40 something years in 23 countries I have fired a gun at someone , I know a little bit about the subject .

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1784882)

There is not such thing as a contact taser. A taser fires a cartridge that is attached to the gun with cords. But once the cartridge is expelled, the taser can operate as a stun gun which may be to what you are referring.

Police are trained to shoot people that have tasers or stun guns because they can render an armed officer helpless and the officer's gun can then be taken from him.

The only argument that might be made in this case was that there was another officer there who could have prevented that from happening.

I'd like to know if Atlanta police are trained to shoot when fired upon with a taser or if a person has a stun gun.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1785313)

He had NO, ZERO, NADA chance of making it to his car. It was in the opposite direction. He was so drunk and having a panic attack because he could visualize the possibility of the Police putting a knee on his neck after they cuffed him. He saw MR Floyd get MURDERED. The Atlanta man WAS "a frightened sheep" at that moment. His adrenaline would have run ou,t if they just pursued him on foot. But that was NOT macho and they FAILED to wrestle him well. So the one officer's reptile brain said "must SHOOT the BLACK escaping convict". What would JESUS have done?

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1784894)

You'd better watch all of the available videos. This was a completely justifiable shooting.

Here are the facts as I know them to be. If I'm missing anything, please let me know.

The police received a 911 call that a man had fallen asleep in his car in the Wendy's drive through line.

An officer arrived at the scene and found he man asleep and woke him.

The man then drove the car to a parking space where he went up onto the curb and back down.

The officer had to wake the man again.

The man had trouble communicating and finding his license and the officer noted the strong smell of alcohol.

The officer called for a breathalyzer qualified officer.

The breathalyzer officer arrived and began asking questions. Mr Brook gave conflicting answers to the same questions. He did not remember being in the drive through line or driving his car to the parking space.

The officer, with the permission of Mr Brooks administered a breathalyzer test and found that Mr Brooks was to incapacitated to drive and asked him to put his hands behind his back. As the officer was attempting to handcuff him, Mr Brooks began a scuffle with the officer and they both fell to the ground. Mr Brooks then grabbed the officer's taser and proceeded to run. the officer pursued. After a short pursuit, Mr Brooks turned and fired the taser at the officer and the officer returned fire hitting Mr Brooks.

Please tell me what I missed and how the officer might have handled this differently.

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 1785270)

When you shoot someone twice in back it’s murder you can go 123 or manslaughter but it’s murder