I've been trying to keep a calm disposition about the stuff I see on here but, y'know what... [BLEEP] it.

STOP [BLEEP] KILLING PEOPLE. LETHAL FORCE SHOULD ONLY BE USED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEARLY CAUSING AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE LIVES OF OTHERS. THAT IS [BLEEP] BASIC.

The city’s prosecutor literally just said the use of a taser is deadly force when he arrested those officers. 

Would you rather the officers get tased before shooting? What’s the alternative here?

Well at that point you do have the dudes car. Impound it, and wait for him to come get it. Got his name, his address, and it wouldn't be too hard to find out where he works. So, why even chase him? After he sleeps it off, he will have to come to the realization the DUI would have been less trouble than resisting, and taking the weapon. I know someone will say, "but he took a weapon he could use on someone else" ... If he is going to use a weapon (any weapon) that's on him. Weapons aren't hard to come by. Mr. Brooks, when you come to get your car, bring the taser with you, and we will drop the theft charge.

Man still alive, cop still employed.

---

Dude, if you hesitate to think of your options at the heat of the moment, you die.

If you can't handle thinking about whether or not shooting someone is a good idea, you should probably hand in your badge before you ever have to make that call.

I respect where you're coming from, but at a certain point there has to be some sanity.  Now were getting into "yeh, he assaulted the police, stole a weapon, and threatened them with it but but but" territory.  This isn't a video game where you just start over.  The Chief shouldn't have resigned, the mayor shouldn't be posturing that this wasn't a justifiable use of force.  The officer should be on administrative leave (per protocol) until the investigation is concluded but again, the idea that this is being folded into the larger narrative of "police hunting black bodies" is asinine and dangerous.

---

tasering a cop = deserving of being murdered?

You're heads are warped

He’s punched them and stole a weapon. 

What makes you think he won’t steal the gun next time? If he tases that cop, he can do whatever he wants to him. Is that really what we’re suggesting here? Do we really believe that cops should allow their attackers to tase them now?

---

The city’s prosecutor literally just said the use of a taser is deadly force when he arrested those officers. 

Would you rather the officers get tased before shooting? What’s the alternative here?

Well at that point you do have the dudes car. Impound it, and wait for him to come get it. Got his name, his address, and it wouldn't be too hard to find out where he works. So, why even chase him? After he sleeps it off, he will have to come to the realization the DUI would have been less trouble than resisting, and taking the weapon. I know someone will say, "but he took a weapon he could use on someone else" ... If he is going to use a weapon (any weapon) that's on him. Weapons aren't hard to come by. Mr. Brooks, when you come to get your car, bring the taser with you, and we will drop the theft charge.

Man still alive, cop still employed.

I think that’s the best case scenario, and from my experience, it almost never works out that way. They rarely turn themselves in and would rather run for years. People that fight with police don’t usually become rational and cooperative. 

Besides, he was punching the the cops. He’s already been violent. He stole a weapon, driven drunk, resisted arrest, and tried tasing a cop. Everything he’s doing is worse than the last thing. What if he car jacks someone? No one is going to think they should’ve let him go at that point.

---

The city’s prosecutor literally just said the use of a taser is deadly force when he arrested those officers. 

Would you rather the officers get tased before shooting? What’s the alternative here?

So, every time a police uses the taser, it must be considered using deadly force for that particular reason.

I ask, why was deadly force used to remove this person from simply asking a question at the University of Florida ?  

Andrew Meyer, a 21-year-old fourth-year undergraduate mass communication student, had initially been allowed to ask a question after the close of the question period. He asked Kerry whether he was a member of Skull and Bones society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University...r_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

---

The city’s prosecutor literally just said the use of a taser is deadly force when he arrested those officers. 

Would you rather the officers get tased before shooting? What’s the alternative here?

So, every time a police uses the taser, it must be considered using deadly force for that particular reason.

I ask, why was deadly force used to remove this person from simply asking a question at the University of Florida ?  

Andrew Meyer, a 21-year-old fourth-year undergraduate mass communication student, had initially been allowed to ask a question after the close of the question period. He asked Kerry whether he was a member of Skull and Bones society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University...r_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

It isn’t actually using deadly force. I’m only saying what their city’s DA said when he used it to justify arresting their officers. A decision, I’m guessing, JagJohn agrees with.

The reason it warrants getting shot here is because it renders the guy with the gun useless against his attacker.

---

If you can't handle thinking about whether or not shooting someone is a good idea, you should probably hand in your badge before you ever have to make that call.

I respect where you're coming from, but at a certain point there has to be some sanity.  Now were getting into "yeh, he assaulted the police, stole a weapon, and threatened them with it but but but" territory.  This isn't a video game where you just start over.  The Chief shouldn't have resigned, the mayor shouldn't be posturing that this wasn't a justifiable use of force.  The officer should be on administrative leave (per protocol) until the investigation is concluded but again, the idea that this is being folded into the larger narrative of "police hunting black bodies" is asinine and dangerous.

There does have to be sanity, and that's why I think that this one probably wasn't worth the riots, and certainly wasn't worth burning down a perfectly good Wendy's over. And it's roughly 99% certain that it was rioters, not "agent provocateurs" who burned the Wendy's. I had the Snapmap pulled up to see if anything was starting up close enough to me to be worth staying up for and watched some Snapchats from down there. My initial hunch given news reports showing the area around the Wendy's mostly clear when the fire started was that someone else had gone back there to do it, but there were a couple of Snapchats showing a small handful of rioters running around behind the Wendy's as a fire was growing quickly in a drive-thru window. So anyone who's going to say cops or agent provocateurs or whoever did it...no. There was a gas station literally right next door.

I have a neighbor who, while a couple of layers removed from the Mayor, has been close enough to see the Chief's resignation playing out. It started the day that officers were fired for tasing college students and dragging them out of a car. She was unhappy about that but agreed to it's necessity under the situation, but was absolutely livid after those officers were charged with crimes related to the incident. It had been represented to her and to everyone else as purely a personnel decision, and the Chief ended up having to write a memo to the entire police department explaining as much, and that she never would have supported criminal action against them. I haven't talked to said neighbor yet, but my unfounded speculation would be that the Mayor wanted to fire the officer in question right away for what even I'm saying looks 50/50 in terms of whether or not it was justified, the Chief refused to support it, one thing led to another and the Chief stepped aside. 

What really sucks about it is that even though I'm just naturally inclined to not trust cops, Chief Shields was doing damn near everything right. Her cops were a little heavy-handed on use of force but nothing compared to other cities, and they're the only force I've seen that was telling the National Guard basically to sit back, shut up, and let them handle it. She's the only police chief I've seen from a major city who's gone out into the crowd herself, in uniform, without an armed escort, and has actually been talking to protesters one-on-one. I have a lot of respect for how Mayor Bottoms has been handling the situation here thus far from a political standpoint, but Chief Shields has done a tremendous job of managing the police response. I'm actually pretty broken up about her departure, and if this does up being a, "Fire that officer or quit," ultimatum, as I suspect it will, I'm going to lose a lot of that respect. Kneeling on someone's neck for 9 minutes should warrant immediate termination. Something like this where one camera implies excessive force and the other leaves open a lot of questions (your body cam video won't play for me) isn't, imo, something you immediately fire a cop over. The Mayor even said that it's not a protocol firing and it may not even be a violation of any policies. It's a judgment and morality call, and when someone's stolen a police taser and shot it back towards them while running away, yeah, it is shooting someone in the back, but if that taser could be used as a ranged weapon a second time that would have allowed the suspect to grab a sidearm while an officer was on the ground, it's probably justifiable to do so. That said, it's the officer's responsibility to know their weapons, and if they knew that taser was a single-shot weapon and had been rendered useless at a range of more than 0 inches, then shooting a fleeing suspect was 100% not justified. It's a blurry line, but I think that when deadly force is used, you have to look at all the circumstances of the event, and if even one of them says that deadly force should not have been used, you have to come down on the side of the deadly force being excessive. If you're going to take someone's life and you've been given extensive training and testing on how to make that decision, you have to be able to recognize all the circumstances of a situation before doing it. If the taser is empty, that person is not an immediate, credible threat warranting deadly force. If there's a second cartridge, they are, because a ranged taser becomes lethal in a hurry. And speaking as someone who's been hit with a taser before (in a controlled environment), that thing puts you on the floor and leaves you totally open to any kind of attack the person holding it wants to employ. If there was a second cartridge, I fully agree with the decision to use deadly force in this case.

These riots, the protests, all of it (except the looting) come back to the perception that police are unfairly targeting people of color, and there's no accountability when they do. A large part of fixing that is going to involve much faster decisions about discipline and criminal charges when someone dies by the hand, or knee, of a cop, and a much more transparent process in publicly explaining why actions were or were not taken. That's really what happened here, I think. Mayor Bottoms recognized an immediate threat of rioting based on this incident and wanted to do her best to shove the genie back into the bottle right away, protocol be damned. Chief Shields saw that there was more to the story and wanted some amount of time to review any other evidence that turned up before firing another officer, and after being told that she wouldn't get it, she agreed to step down with the promise of an "unspecified role within the city government" waiting for her. It's unfortunate and it's unnecessary in this case, because the right thing to do in an unclear set of circumstances like this one is to follow protocol. Protocol says administrative duty, not immediate termination because the Mayor wants to make a decision based on the concept of "can vs. should".

---

There were two policemen. Had he been able to disable one of the officers with the taser, the other one could have prevented him from gaining possession of a weapon. Shooting Brooks seems disproportionate.

Of course I have the benefit of passing judgement from the comfort of my home after viewing video of the incident. But it also brings up a question which is now being asked more often. How much training are officers receiving to deal with high stress, fast-moving scenarios such as this? Would more training have enabled the policemen to make a better assessment about the lethality of Brooks with the taser and the appropriate response? It certainly wouldn't hurt.

---

There were two policemen. Had he been able to disable one of the officers with the taser, the other one could have prevented him from gaining possession of a weapon. Shooting Brooks seems disproportionate.

Of course I have the benefit of passing judgement from the comfort of my home after viewing video of the incident. But it also brings up a question which is now being asked more often. How much training are officers receiving to deal with high stress, fast-moving scenarios such as this? Would more training have enabled the policemen to make a better assessment about the lethality of Brooks with the taser and the appropriate response? It certainly wouldn't hurt.

There were two officers when the taser was taken. 

What I saw was taser dependency. Some cops get into a mindset that they have to use it during a fight, and it ultimately led to them trying to use it as they’re getting punched. They should’ve been punching him as he’s punching them. The taser is ineffective up close anyway.

---

tasering a cop = deserving of being murdered?

You're heads are warped

He’s punched them and stole a weapon. 

What makes you think he won’t steal the gun next time? If he tases that cop, he can do whatever he wants to him. Is that really what we’re suggesting here? Do we really believe that cops should allow their attackers to tase them now?

if someone punches a cop and steals his baton should you shoot him dead?

---

He’s punched them and stole a weapon. 

What makes you think he won’t steal the gun next time? If he tases that cop, he can do whatever he wants to him. Is that really what we’re suggesting here? Do we really believe that cops should allow their attackers to tase them now?

if someone punches a cop and steals his baton should you shoot him dead?

Maybe you’re onto something.  Stop punching cops and stealing their stuff?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

There were two officers when the taser was taken. 

What I saw was taser dependency. Some cops get into a mindset that they have to use it during a fight, and it ultimately led to them trying to use it as they’re getting punched. They should’ve been punching him as he’s punching them. The taser is ineffective up close anyway.

They really should have secured his upper body first, but I think they were trying to do it without having any appearance of excessive force. If they punch the guy, they are all over the news for punching a black man who just committed a DUI. Loosely bear hugging a guy isn't going to stop him. There were so many positions they could have used to control him, but they just didn't do it. Cops need to be trained in BJJ or similar if they can't use a taser, they get fired, charged, and sued if they use force, etc. Let them break some arm, legs, or put someone to sleep if they resist.

It's a terrible situation because cops can't do what they need to arrest someone who is resisting now. I'm waiting for APD to just walk away for a day or 2 if this continues or the union doesn't have the cop's back. They cannot do their job now.

---

if someone punches a cop and steals his baton should you shoot him dead?

Maybe you’re onto something.  Stop punching cops and stealing their stuff?

Talking a gun from a cop is a death sentence. Talking a baton or handcuffs or a taser shouldn’t be unless other circumstances exist.

---

He’s punched them and stole a weapon. 

What makes you think he won’t steal the gun next time? If he tases that cop, he can do whatever he wants to him. Is that really what we’re suggesting here? Do we really believe that cops should allow their attackers to tase them now?

if someone punches a cop and steals his baton should you shoot him dead?

Yes

---

if someone punches a cop and steals his baton should you shoot him dead?

Yes

Circumstances matter. Did this person start hitting the cop with the baton? Is he charging another person with the baton raised to strike? If yes, shoot. If they just took the baton and made a run for it, I don’t see how you justify shooting someone who’s running away and not posing an immediate threat. That’s what tasers and backup are for.

---

BREAKING: Atlanta Police Release Bodycam Footage, Shows Rayshard Brooks Resisting Arrest Prior To Stealing Taser
https://www.analyzingamerica.org/breakin...npBZb5Bv5U

---

BREAKING: Atlanta Police Release Bodycam Footage, Shows Rayshard Brooks Resisting Arrest Prior To Stealing Taser
https://www.analyzingamerica.org/breakin...npBZb5Bv5U

Yes, we already know that he resisted arrest. Resisting arrest is not a death penalty.

---

BREAKING: Atlanta Police Release Bodycam Footage, Shows Rayshard Brooks Resisting Arrest Prior To Stealing Taser
https://www.analyzingamerica.org/breakin...npBZb5Bv5U

Yes, we already know that he resisted arrest. Resisting arrest is not a death penalty.

FYI, the taser fired multiple shots. I counted 3 firing sounds, but not sure who fired the 3 and if it was a combination of multiple tasers. Then there is the additional shot from the criminal.


The cops were trying to use a seat belt hold, but it is useless if you don't control the legs.

---

Well at that point you do have the dudes car. Impound it, and wait for him to come get it. Got his name, his address, and it wouldn't be too hard to find out where he works. So, why even chase him? After he sleeps it off, he will have to come to the realization the DUI would have been less trouble than resisting, and taking the weapon. I know someone will say, "but he took a weapon he could use on someone else" ... If he is going to use a weapon (any weapon) that's on him. Weapons aren't hard to come by. Mr. Brooks, when you come to get your car, bring the taser with you, and we will drop the theft charge.

Man still alive, cop still employed.

I think that’s the best case scenario, and from my experience, it almost never works out that way. They rarely turn themselves in and would rather run for years. People that fight with police don’t usually become rational and cooperative. 

Besides, he was punching the the cops. He’s already been violent. He stole a weapon, driven drunk, resisted arrest, and tried tasing a cop. Everything he’s doing is worse than the last thing. What if he car jacks someone? No one is going to think they should’ve let him go at that point.

Maybe, but this guy didn't have any warrants, driving a nice car, well dressed ... I think he comes back for his car, and actually to recover his life. Watching that video gave me no reason to believe he was going to do what he did. I think even the cops were surprised. Maybe I will be wrong, but I sense this guy wasn't a thug, or habitual criminal. I do admit, I'm not the best judge of character ... I hang out with Jag fans.

---

if someone punches a cop and steals his baton should you shoot him dead?

Yes

i hear numerous cops have died due to someone stealing their baton

---

---