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.

Give it up man, the cops had no other choice than to use his back as target practice. The cop even seemed proud that "he got him".

This cop has had12 charges including charges of excessive use of force with a firearm. Averaged 2 per year ... He was probably going to kill someone sooner or later (we are ALSO allowed to makeup accusations, and possibilities).

Those charges include five vehicle accidents, four citizen complaints, a firearm discharge in August 2015, and an allegation of excessive use of force with a gun in 2017 that resulted in him only receiving a reprimand.

https://thegrio.com/2020/06/16/atlanta-c...omplaints/

So bad cop. Maybe I missed it, but how many charges has the victim had before his death by cop?

---

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.

I can't even find a smartass meme to respond to this with. Isn't all of life a constant calculus of, "Will it work?"

---

I can't even find a smartass meme to respond to this with. Isn't all of life a constant calculus of, "Will it work?"

Maybe I am way too old to understand ... But these meme things seem like something twelve year old girls would do. For sure not grown men.

---

I can't even find a smartass meme to respond to this with. Isn't all of life a constant calculus of, "Will it work?"

Maybe I am way too old to understand ... But these meme things seem like something twelve year old girls would do. For sure not grown men.

A picture's worth a thousand words though

And they're just funny when used correctly.

---

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

I thank the Russians every day

Awesome, since you don't have to speak Russian either, and for the same reason since Russia loses the the Reich without us too.

---

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

I thank the Russians every day

Awesome, since your dumb [BLEEP] doesnt have to speak Russian either.

Благодарим обе наши страны за то, что они не дают нам говорить по-немецки. Спасибо, мой друг.

---

Awesome, since your dumb [BLEEP] doesnt have to speak Russian either.

Благодарим обе наши страны за то, что они не дают нам говорить по-немецки. Спасибо, мой друг.

пожалуйста

---

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

[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.

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.

---

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.
[/quote]

1)  You speculated that 1 of the police officers could have stopped him after he assaulted both of them and took a deadly weapon from one of them.  Again, if the thug was able to resist arrest, assault both police officers, take a deadly weapon illegally and attempt escape is he not a danger to others?

2)  You have never been in a situation like this.  I have been (very similar but with a different outcome).  One case in particular that I will describe to you and how it can turn in an instant.  We got a call to a home where an ex-boyfriend showed up and threatened harm to a woman.  We got him and were escorting him peacefully off the property to further question him.  When we went to place him under arrest, the "woman" attacked us pretty viciously.  The guy was much bigger than me and the fellow officer, so while we were trying to control him we also had to deal with her.  During the struggle the guy tried to get the weapon of the officer that I was with.  Luckily we had backup officers arrive to help us, otherwise it could have turned out very ugly.  The incident happened in mere seconds.

When someone is determined to resist arrest and fight cops, drawing a weapon and shouting "freeze!" just doesn't do it.  Real life is not the same as what you see on television.

3)  When you get trained (at least for me) you focus on the hands.  When the guy spun around in a split second with an object in his hand, the police officer didn't know if it was a taser, a gun or a rubber ducky.  The point is that the body action was consistent with a threat.  Police officers are taught to "stop the threat" or "stop the action".  The officer that fired his gun stopped the action and did his job.

---

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

I thank the Russians every day

Awesome, since you don't have to speak Russian either, and for the same reason since Russia loses the the Reich without us too.

Nice catch Comrade.

---

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.

You spoke in absolutes. I refuted those absolutes. You're speculating, and I'm telling you you're wrong.

1. When he ran off, he proved he was a threat as he turned around to tase the officer.
2. It isn't a stretch to believe he would steal another weapon. He's already stolen one. His behavior proves that he's fully capable of doing that.
3. They couldn't prevent him from taking the taser, so why do you say they would have stopped him that time.
4. Taser didn't work on Brooks. The second officer already used his taser.
5. He wasn't close enough to use his baton.
6. Yelling "Don't move" as they do on TV rarely works, and all of those previous commands didn't work. 

Which part is speculation?

You don't use force to give them a chance to comply. You use force to give yourself a chance not to be seriously injured or killed. They gave him plenty of chances, and he decided that he wouldn't take them up on that offer. The officers not once pulled their weapon until he decided to use the taser against him. Only after George Floyd's death would people assume an officer shouldn't shoot someone that points a taser at them after said person punched and hit those officers with that taser. All of your solutions require that Brooks act counter to his demonstrated behavior and for the officers to assume all of the risk.

---

I thank the Russians every day

Awesome, since you don't have to speak Russian either, and for the same reason since Russia loses the the Reich without us too.

It didn't take much to tip the balance on the Eastern front to the Soviets  We basically just had to trade with them on credit, float food and ammo up the Volga, while we had the Nazis embargoed starting in the 1930s.  Our help was critical, but we sacrificed basically nothing in that arena. Before we landed on D-Day the Nazis knew they would never conquer the Soviets.

---

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

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.

You spoke in absolutes. I refuted those absolutes. You're speculating, and I'm telling you you're wrong.

1. When he ran off, he proved he was a threat as he turned around to tase the officer.
2. It isn't a stretch to believe he would steal another weapon. He's already stolen one. His behavior proves that he's fully capable of doing that.
3. They couldn't prevent him from taking the taser, so why do you say they would have stopped him that time.
4. Taser didn't work on Brooks. The second officer already used his taser.
5. He wasn't close enough to use his baton.
6. Yelling "Don't move" as they do on TV rarely works, and all of those previous commands didn't work. 

Which part is speculation?

You don't use force to give them a chance to comply. You use force to give yourself a chance not to be seriously injured or killed. They gave him plenty of chances, and he decided that he wouldn't take them up on that offer. The officers not once pulled their weapon until he decided to use the taser against him. Only after George Floyd's death would people assume an officer shouldn't shoot someone that points a taser at them after said person punched and hit those officers with that taser. All of your solutions require that Brooks act counter to his demonstrated behavior and for the officers to assume all of the risk.

Predicting his behavior is speculation.
You insist that he didn't deserve more chances because you speculate that he wouldn't have used them well.
At the moment he got shot, he does not seem to be a deadly threat to anyone.
He deserved to have more chances to live until his behavior actually became a serious threat to another person's life. He deserved to live until he actually threatened the life of somebody.   He never got close to that point.  The cops knew what was in his hand.

---

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

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.

And still alive.

---

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.
 

Dudes, Brooks has a criminal history. They protest and burn a Wendy's for this bum. Family say he was a nice sweet young man. BLM agenda is a lol.

---

Dudes,  Brooks has a criminal history.  They protest and burn a Wendy's for this bum.  Family say he was a nice sweet young man.  BLM agenda is a lol.

Everyone with a criminal history deserves to get shot by cops?

---

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

Dudes,  Brooks has a criminal history.  They protest and burn a Wendy's for this bum.  Family say he was a nice sweet young man.  BLM agenda is a lol.

Everyone with a criminal history deserves to get shot by cops?

If you resist arrest, assault not one but police officers, steal their weapons, use said stolen weapon upon them, then the axiom of play stupid games win stupid prizes applies here.

---

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.
 

Everyone with a criminal history deserves to get shot by cops?

If you resist arrest, assault not one but police officers, steal their weapons, use said stolen weapon upon them, then the axiom of play stupid games win stupid prizes applies here.

I think that saying definitely applies to some people who die. Like, it's very sad that that teenage French rock climber died today. But, climbing the faces of cliffs without a harness is a pretty stupid game. 
Cliffs are just rocks.  If they are inherently dangerous, no one can change that.
But police are people. If they are inherently dangerous, they should be able to change that about themselves.

---

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

You spoke in absolutes. I refuted those absolutes. You're speculating, and I'm telling you you're wrong.

1. When he ran off, he proved he was a threat as he turned around to tase the officer.
2. It isn't a stretch to believe he would steal another weapon. He's already stolen one. His behavior proves that he's fully capable of doing that.
3. They couldn't prevent him from taking the taser, so why do you say they would have stopped him that time.
4. Taser didn't work on Brooks. The second officer already used his taser.
5. He wasn't close enough to use his baton.
6. Yelling "Don't move" as they do on TV rarely works, and all of those previous commands didn't work. 

Which part is speculation?

You don't use force to give them a chance to comply. You use force to give yourself a chance not to be seriously injured or killed. They gave him plenty of chances, and he decided that he wouldn't take them up on that offer. The officers not once pulled their weapon until he decided to use the taser against him. Only after George Floyd's death would people assume an officer shouldn't shoot someone that points a taser at them after said person punched and hit those officers with that taser. All of your solutions require that Brooks act counter to his demonstrated behavior and for the officers to assume all of the risk.

Predicting his behavior is speculation.
You insist that he didn't deserve more chances because you speculate that he wouldn't have used them well.
At the moment he got shot, he does not seem to be a deadly threat to anyone.
He deserved to have more chances to live until his behavior actually became a serious threat to another person's life. He deserved to live until he actually threatened the life of somebody.   He never got close to that point.  The cops knew what was in his hand.

We don't have to predict his behavior, we know what he did.

How many chances are enough to finally decide to do the right thing? By your logic, as long as he didn't shot someone he should continue to keep getting another chance to stop and allow himself to be arrested for the rest of his life? As long as you don't shoot someone, commit whatever crimes you want and you will keep getting chances to do better and you can turn yourself in when you feel deep down you have used up your 2nd chances.


That will never work, proof in point all the kids growing up to be leftist that never had any consequences growing up. They got away with everything and don't understand people in the real world don't let them do what they want and there are consequences for your actions.

---

If you resist arrest, assault not one but police officers, steal their weapons, use said stolen weapon upon them, then the axiom of play stupid games win stupid prizes applies here.

I think that saying definitely applies to some people who die. Like, it's very sad that that teenage French rock climber died today. But, climbing the faces of cliffs without a harness is a pretty stupid game. 
Cliffs are just rocks.  If they are inherently dangerous, no one can change that.
But police are people. If they are inherently dangerous, they should be able to change that about themselves.

Oh brother...

---

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

If you resist arrest, assault not one but police officers, steal their weapons, use said stolen weapon upon them, then the axiom of play stupid games win stupid prizes applies here.

I think that saying definitely applies to some people who die. Like, it's very sad that that teenage French rock climber died today. But, climbing the faces of cliffs without a harness is a pretty stupid game. 
Cliffs are just rocks.  If they are inherently dangerous, no one can change that.
But police are people. If they are inherently dangerous, they should be able to change that about themselves.

Could either police officer been more cordial right up to resisting arrest?  Take is a step further, instead of giving him multiple warnings of stop resisting or you’re gonna get tazed they just tazed him?  He’d still be alive but charges of police brutality and racist cops would be all over the news.  This one is a false narrative.  Black, brown, red, green and gasp, even white, if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.

---

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.