(08-30-2020, 06:04 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

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