(08-29-2020, 09:44 PM)JackCity Wrote:

(08-29-2020, 07:12 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and you continue to dodge my question. How are the police supposed to know that Blake isn't going for a weapon? He isn't complying with the officers orders and tasing isn't even stopping him. 

As for Brooks, apparently you haven't watched the 43 minute body cam footage. The officers couldn't have been nicer to this man who is obviously drunk or high. The ask him multiple times to get back into his car. He refuses they spent at least 40 minutes trying to get information from this guy and he doesn't even know where he is. Finally, after giving him multiple chances, they decide to arrest him. When trying to place him under arrest, he fights with the officers and tries to grab their taser. That is very clear by the video. Had he gotten control of that taser, he could've incapacitated the officers and taken their guns. Then we could've had two dead cops. According to his criminal history, this guy had a violent temper and had been charged with cruelty to children, battery on a family member and false imprisonment, so the officers had to assume their lives were in danger. 

All you keep parroting is that these men were unarmed, so again I will ask and you'll probably ignore the question yet again. How were the cops supposed to know if perps are unarmed? Are they supposed to read minds? I know in Ireland no one probably has guns, but this isn't Ireland. In the U.S., almost all of the criminals are packing heat. Are the cops supposed to just let themselves be targets on the off chance the criminals they are chasing don't have a weapon? That would truly be stupid and if that was the case, no one would want to go into law enforcement, there would be no protection from criminals, vigilantism would run rampant and we'd have pure chaos. What is your solution, because so far, you've offered none.

If they were so deathly worried about him going to the car for a weapon they could have easily man handled him instead of shooting him 7 times in the back. A tad riskier but would have saved a life. 

Also we already had this conversation in the thread on Rashard Brooks, you just weren't there. I've seen the video. He wasn't a threat to the public and was running away, worst case scenario they pick him up later. Instead he's shot dead. 

I offered solutions above if you cared to read them. The willingness in American culture to be the most incarcerated people in the world with some of the most oppressive policing is astounding. "Land of the free" LOL

---

Man handled him? If he has a gun, there is no "man handling" anyone. It takes a fraction of a second to get a shot off and they did not know if he was armed.
If you saw the Brooks video, you either didn't pay attention or are being willfully ignorant. It was a routine arrest. The cops did everything right and then Brooks decided to resist. He grabbed the cop's taser. That cannot be disputed. It's right there on the body cam footage. He had the taser trying to shoot the cop. What else do you need? It's plain as day. You are so politically biased that you'd rather see 2 dead cops than to see them defend themselves and take down a criminal with a violent past. That says a lot about who you are as a person. I'm glad you don't live in this country. We have enough anarchists. 
You offered NO solutions, because you kept avoiding the main question, as you have once again. How are cops supposed to know a suspect is unarmed? It's a simple question, with no real answer. Yet being the "know it all" that you think you are, you through out generalizations with no specifics and continue to completely avoid the question at the core of most of these issues. You're opinions as useless as teets on a boar hog.

---