The rules are pretty simple here...

Don't touch a cop. Don't touch the weapon of a cop.

Either of those things, in theory, can get you killed.

The number of people who accept the above in this country is staggering.

Well, yes, the huge number of people who attempt to excuse criminal behavior are literally out in the streets [BLEEP] about it and committing more crimes to prove that criminal behavior shouldn't be a crime.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The rules are pretty simple here...

Don't touch a cop. Don't touch the weapon of a cop.

Either of those things, in theory, can get you killed.

The number of people who accept the above in this country is staggering.

I accept the rules of the world.

I'm fine with them; because I'm not a criminal. And if I were singled out due to matching the profile of a suspect (which has happened) I am polite and courteous even in the face of being screamed at that they're going to put a bullet in my head if I didn't get on the ground.

Because... ya know.. i want to live.. and if I felt really bothered by anything I can go the litigation route... because, once again, not a criminal.

---

There is a reason he started fighting and ran once he was being arrested. It had nothing to do with injustice. He couldn't afford to get arrested again after just getting out on probation after a previous violation. If you just don't fight with cops this stuff won't happen.

You want to expose racist cops, then the only way is to comply with all their requests.

---

There is a reason he started fighting and ran once he was being arrested. It had nothing to do with injustice. He couldn't afford to get arrested again after just getting out on probation after a previous violation. If you just don't fight with cops this stuff won't happen.

You want to expose racist cops, then the only way is to comply with all their requests.

Should running from the cops merit a death sentence, though? I understand that a taser was fired back towards cops and, to be totally honest, I'm ok with the idea of firing on a suspect as they are firing at you when it's something like a taser that takes certain circumstances to be lethal. It looks to me like that taser was spent before the officer shot Brooks in the back. On the long list of incidents of police brutality since this has started, I don't really even place this one all that high on the list, and I don't think race played into it at all. There have been other documented incidents in Atlanta of multiple officers beating and tasing suspects already on the ground, flashbangs being intentionally thrown directly at the feet of peaceful protesters long before curfew...if you want to see police brutality, look there. However, I don't think that shooting someone in the back as they're fleeing you is not acceptable unless they're pointing a credible weapon (i.e., not a spent taser) at others.

I don't know that I buy police brutality in this case. I certainly don't buy racism, and I definitely don't buy the idea that the only major city police chief who's acted like anything other than a monkey [BLEEP] a football since the death of George Floyd should be fi-resigned over it. I do know that fleeing the police in and of itself is not worthy of a death sentence, and I wouldn't complain in the least if most beat cops had their firearms taken away and replaced with tasers completely. If cops can't handle the responsibility of being judge, jury and executioner without shooting people in the back, then maybe they shouldn't be put in that position.

---

The number of people who accept the above in this country is staggering.

I accept the rules of the world.

I'm fine with them; because I'm not a criminal. And if I were singled out due to matching the profile of a suspect (which has happened) I am polite and courteous even in the face of being screamed at that they're going to put a bullet in my head if I didn't get on the ground.

Because... ya know.. i want to live.. and if I felt really bothered by anything I can go the litigation route... because, once again, not a criminal.

Fun fact: those are not world rules

---

I accept the rules of the world.

I'm fine with them; because I'm not a criminal. And if I were singled out due to matching the profile of a suspect (which has happened) I am polite and courteous even in the face of being screamed at that they're going to put a bullet in my head if I didn't get on the ground.

Because... ya know.. i want to live.. and if I felt really bothered by anything I can go the litigation route... because, once again, not a criminal.

Fun fact: those are not world rules

Fun fact... it is in countries where the Police are given firearms.

---

Fun fact: those are not world rules

Fun fact... it is in countries where the Police are given firearms.

Which kind of plays into why I think that your average, everyday beat cop shouldn't be armed.

---

An officer should only shoot to end an immediate threat to his own life, or a bystander's life.
when Mr Brooks ran off with that non-lethal weapon in his hand, by definition, he was not a threat to anyone's life.
It is a big stretch to insist that because the police officer had a gun, the suspect might use the taser to take the gun.
But there were two officers there. If the suspect managed to tase one of them, the other one would have been able to prevent the suspect from closing in and taking the gun, by using his own taser, or his own nightstick, or even by drawing his own pistol and shouting "don't move!"
Each of these choices gives the suspect another chance to live, without endangering anyone else's life.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It is way past too late to disarm officers that are dealing with today's criminals. Most of those criminals are armed with quality weapons. That is the nature of a country that has an armed citizenry. A small percentage of those citizens that the police must deal with daily are not good people and cannot be dealt with by unarmed forces.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Fun fact: those are not world rules

Fun fact... it is in countries where the Police are given firearms.

Fun fact.. the gun thing seems to be working out really well

---

Fun fact... it is in countries where the Police are given firearms.

Fun fact.. the gun thing seems to be working out really well

You're typing in English, so yeah...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You always respond but never have an actual answer.

I would try to apprehend the suspect without killing him.

It's really [BLEEP] simple: don't kill someone unless they are clearly posing a threat to the lives of others and it is absolutely unavoidable.

I would solve world peace.

You're problem is that you offer no real solutions. You don't actually know what to do; you just know what outcome you want to happen. 

Clearly posing a threat to their lives? He punched the cops, hit both of them in the head with the taser, and then tried to shoot one of them with the taser he just stole. Would you rather he taser the cop, have his head bounce off the concrete, and then go back for another weapon? You and I both know you wouldn't allow someone to shoot you with taser... especially after he just got done hitting you with it. 

An officer should only shoot to end an immediate threat to his own life, or a bystander's life.
when Mr Brooks ran off with that non-lethal weapon in his hand, by definition, he was not a threat to anyone's life.
It is a big stretch to insist that because the police officer had a gun, the suspect might use the taser to take the gun.
But there were two officers there. If the suspect managed to tase one of them, the other one would have been able to prevent the suspect from closing in and taking the gun, by using his own taser, or his own nightstick, or even by drawing his own pistol and shouting "don't move!"
Each of these choices gives the suspect another chance to live, without endangering anyone else's life.

If it's an immediate threat, then it's... immediate. In other words, it's probably too late.

What is a non-lethal weapon to you? If you don't know when or where to tase someone, then you could absolutely seriously injure them especially when they're running.

It isn't a big stretch to assume the guy that stole an officer's weapon would also steal another weapon. The idea that two officers being there would stop him doesn't include the fact that two officers were there when he stole the first one. How do you ignore that? It's interesting how you believe the other officer could've simply stopped him with his taser when the tasers were ineffective against him already. 

Lol @ the "don't move" line. That almost never works because most people don't think you'll shoot them--despite what you see on TV. Besides, he had already been told to stop moving, stop resisting, stop fighting, etc. He wasn't ever going to listen without being physically forced into submission. He made that much already known.

---

An officer should only shoot to end an immediate threat to his own life, or a bystander's life.
when Mr Brooks ran off with that non-lethal weapon in his hand, by definition, he was not a threat to anyone's life.
It is a big stretch to insist that because the police officer had a gun, the suspect might use the taser to take the gun.
But there were two officers there. If the suspect managed to tase one of them, the other one would have been able to prevent the suspect from closing in and taking the gun, by using his own taser, or his own nightstick, or even by drawing his own pistol and shouting "don't move!"
Each of these choices gives the suspect another chance to live, without endangering anyone else's life.

There are a couple of problems with your little fantasy.

First, look at the size difference between the police officers and the suspect.  He already was able to assault and get away from two of them.  Do you think that just one of them will be able to stop and restrain him with a taser or a "nightstick"?

Second, if the officer draws on him and shouts "don't move" and he doesn't stop, then what?  Ask him pretty please?

When the thug chose to escalate the situation to a high stress situation it happened in a matter of seconds.

By the way, a taser as well as a "nightstick" (aka PR-24) are both deadly weapons.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Fists are a deadly weapon..

I remember in my Middle School a kid got killed by getting punched in the temple. Very thin bone up there, it likes to shatter into the brain.

---

Fists are a deadly weapon..

I remember in my Middle School a kid got killed by getting punched in the temple. Very thin bone up there, it likes to shatter into the brain.

I was going to say something similar. In capable hands anything can be considered a deadly weapon.

---

Welcome to the gun show!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Fun fact.. the gun thing seems to be working out really well

You're typing in English, so yeah...

I thank the Russians every day

---

The bottom line here is the suspect got exactly what he deserved according to his choices and actions.

A lot of people like to play the "what if" game, so here's my take on it.  What if the guy had not resisted, complied and went to jail?  He would be alive today and with his family albeit with hefty fines and court appearances in front of him.  What if the guy somehow got away or was never contacted by the officers?  Would he (or perhaps someone else) be dead today because he chose to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk?

Whether you think it is or it isn't, attacking a police officer with a Tazer, baton or a knife is considered a deadly threat.  Yes he was shot in the back but at that point he had already chosen to break several laws that are a threat not only to the police officers, but to the community as well.

BLM, the media and many "protesters" will and are trying to characterize this as "white police officers killed an innocent black man".  That is simply not the case.

As far as just "letting him go" and waiting for him to come and get his car...  that has to be one of the dumbest suggestions I've ever heard.  Is someone that has no regard for human life (DUI, assaulting police, resisting arrest, threatening police) really going to turn themselves in?

Once again the bottom line is the suspect chose to escalate the situation and chose to make a decision that ultimately cost him his life.  Both police officers are innocent of any crime.  Quite frankly if I was still in the profession I would seriously consider changing my career choice given how public perception is right now.

If you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer ... So don't be a moron. Besides, you are throwing out "what if's"  What if the bad cop (and he is a bad cop) shot an innocent child? Mr. Bad Cop didn't have regard for human life, this is a proven.

---

Welcome to the gun show!

Crikey.

---

[quote pid='1307986' dateline='1592322509']
An officer should only shoot to end an immediate threat to his own life, or a bystander's life.
when Mr Brooks ran off with that non-lethal weapon in his hand, by definition, he was not a threat to anyone's life.
It is a big stretch to insist that because the police officer had a gun, the suspect might use the taser to take the gun.
But there were two officers there. If the suspect managed to tase one of them, the other one would have been able to prevent the suspect from closing in and taking the gun, by using his own taser, or his own nightstick, or even by drawing his own pistol and shouting "don't move!"
Each of these choices gives the suspect another chance to live, without endangering anyone else's life.

If it's an immediate threat, then it's... immediate. In other words, it's probably too late.

What is a non-lethal weapon to you? If you don't know when or where to tase someone, then you could absolutely seriously injure them especially when they're running.

It isn't a big stretch to assume the guy that stole an officer's weapon would also steal another weapon. The idea that two officers being there would stop him doesn't include the fact that two officers were there when he stole the first one. How do you ignore that? It's interesting how you believe the other officer could've simply stopped him with his taser when the tasers were ineffective against him already. 

Lol @ the "don't move" line. That almost never works because most people don't think you'll shoot them--despite what you see on TV. Besides, he had already been told to stop moving, stop resisting, stop fighting, etc. He wasn't ever going to listen without being physically forced into submission. He made that much already known.
[/quote]

You are speculating about whether the things I propose would have worked in the situation.  
That's besides my point.  Completely besides it.  They might have worked, or they might not.
My point is the man, who is now dead, deserved additional chances to live.  Whether he would have taken those chances, that's up to him.
But instead the officer decided to offer no additional chances.

---

An officer should only shoot to end an immediate threat to his own life, or a bystander's life.
when Mr Brooks ran off with that non-lethal weapon in his hand, by definition, he was not a threat to anyone's life.
It is a big stretch to insist that because the police officer had a gun, the suspect might use the taser to take the gun.
But there were two officers there. If the suspect managed to tase one of them, the other one would have been able to prevent the suspect from closing in and taking the gun, by using his own taser, or his own nightstick, or even by drawing his own pistol and shouting "don't move!"
Each of these choices gives the suspect another chance to live, without endangering anyone else's life.

There are a couple of problems with your little fantasy.

First, look at the size difference between the police officers and the suspect.  He already was able to assault and get away from two of them.  Do you think that just one of them will be able to stop and restrain him with a taser or a "nightstick"?

Second, if the officer draws on him and shouts "don't move" and he doesn't stop, then what?  Ask him pretty please?

When the thug chose to escalate the situation to a high stress situation it happened in a matter of seconds.

By the way, a taser as well as a "nightstick" (aka PR-24) are both deadly weapons.

1) That's speculation about outcomes, see above.  It's irrelevant.
2) Same as (1).  If he does stop, he lives.  He deserves additional chances to live up until he is threatening life.  If he doesn't stop, and gets closer to the precipice of threatening life, that's on him.
3) Everything's a deadly weapon.  Don't be a pedant.  Some weapons are more deadly than others.  Yes, the guy with the slingshot defeated the guy with the sword, but usually sword guy wins because swords are more deadly than slingshots.  You're supposed to pull out your least deadly weapon appropriate to the situation at hand.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.