Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This guy failed a field sobriety test and should have went to jail.

But he fought the police, stole a stun gun, ran, then turned and tried to shoot an officer with the stun gun. 

How is any of the above considered OK?!?

The media is trying to make it sound like he was shot for sleeping in the drive through! 

Posted

This crap is coming from politicians. Wonder why I call them DEMONcrats.

This guy didn’t die because he was sleeping in a  drive-thru. He died because he resisted arrest, took a taser from a cop, ran and tried to use the taser on the cop. 
 

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please
 
The killing of
This is the hidden content, please
in Atlanta last night demands we severely restrict the use of deadly force. Yes, investigations must be called for - but so too should accountability.

Sleeping in a drive-thru must not end in death.
Posted
41 minutes ago, Ty Cobb said:

This crap is coming from politicians. Wonder why I call them DEMONcrats.

This guy didn’t die because he was sleeping in a  drive-thru. He died because he resisted arrest, took a taser from a cop, ran and tried to use the taser on the cop. 
 

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please
 
The killing of
This is the hidden content, please
in Atlanta last night demands we severely restrict the use of deadly force. Yes, investigations must be called for - but so too should accountability.

Sleeping in a drive-thru must not end in death.

Yeah.:.. she’s not talking about any accountability for the guy who was wilding out. 

Posted

I think you’ll see more of this, not less. When the lefties made sure that you can no longer restrain a person around their neck, they guaranteed that more of these fights will have deadly endings. Either one of those cops could have taken the guy’s back and locked him down.... except now they can’t. That tool was taken. 
 

I think the police should do a little protest of their own. Just a public announcement that “due to our systemic racism and uncontrollable oppression, each and every one of us has decided to suspend ourselves for one week without pay, effective now.  May the odds be ever in your favor.” And cue the Purge siren. 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Ty Cobb said:

This crap is coming from politicians. Wonder why I call them DEMONcrats.

This guy didn’t die because he was sleeping in a  drive-thru. He died because he resisted arrest, took a taser from a cop, ran and tried to use the taser on the cop. 
 

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please
 
The killing of
This is the hidden content, please
in Atlanta last night demands we severely restrict the use of deadly force. Yes, investigations must be called for - but so too should accountability.

Sleeping in a drive-thru must not end in death.

The folly of her statement, like in many such situations, is the claim that some minor crime shouldn’t end in a person’s death.  That is the classic straw man.

 The police didn’t shoot him because he was sleeping in a drive-thru. That is silly. Sure, we can all agree that sleeping isn’t justification to be killed but that isn’t why he was shot. He was shot for attacking an officer and taking a weapon. Whether we agree on the use of force, he wasn’t shot for sleeping. That is an outright lie for political gain. 

We have seen the same kind of statements like for a person who the police were trying to arrest for misdemeanor marijuana.  I was reading a case like that a few years ago. The guy reached for a gun and was shot. The article was titled, man shot for marijuana.  No, he was shot reaching for a gun.

It doesn’t matter why the police started talking to you, it is your actions that determine the use of force, not the reason for the interaction. 

Posted
34 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The folly of her statement, like in many such situations, is the claim that some minor crime shouldn’t end in a person’s death.  That is the classic straw man.

 The police didn’t shoot him because he was sleeping in a drive-thru. That is silly. Sure, we can all agree that sleeping isn’t justification to be killed but that isn’t why he was shot. He was shot for attacking an officer and taking a weapon. Whether we agree on the use of force, he wasn’t shot for sleeping. That is an outright lie for political gain. 

We have seen the same kind of statements like for a person who the police were trying to arrest for misdemeanor marijuana.  I was reading a case like that a few years ago. The guy reached for a gun and was shot. The article was titled, man shot for marijuana.  No, he was shot reaching for a gun.

It doesn’t matter why the police started talking to you, it is your actions that determine the use of force, not the reason for the interaction. 

What’s your opinion on this use of force? I’ve seen a few LEO-types post that this was justified because the officer would have been incapacitated if tazed and unable to defend himself.  
 

Mike Tyson said “everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face.” A fight is extremely stressful, whether you’re a pro fighter, untrained civilian, or trained policeman. When a person initiates combat with a policeman, they’re basically putting him/her into an unbelievably stressful position and counting on them to make sound decisions under those conditions.  Sometimes I think that a lot of these people complaining have never been in a fight. 

Posted
53 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The folly of her statement, like in many such situations, is the claim that some minor crime shouldn’t end in a person’s death.  That is the classic straw man.

 The police didn’t shoot him because he was sleeping in a drive-thru. That is silly. Sure, we can all agree that sleeping isn’t justification to be killed but that isn’t why he was shot. He was shot for attacking an officer and taking a weapon. Whether we agree on the use of force, he wasn’t shot for sleeping. That is an outright lie for political gain. 

We have seen the same kind of statements like for a person who the police were trying to arrest for misdemeanor marijuana.  I was reading a case like that a few years ago. The guy reached for a gun and was shot. The article was titled, man shot for marijuana.  No, he was shot reaching for a gun.

It doesn’t matter why the police started talking to you, it is your actions that determine the use of force, not the reason for the interaction. 

This^ 100%

Posted

The first time I saw this story yesterday, there were 2 videos. One from a car parked on the side of the action. Those people didnt seem to mind until shots were fired and they said "hey we gots kids in here." The 2nd video started as the man broke loose and began running. Then 3 shots, and the cameraman began screaming something like this.

"Why you shot him? That's fd up. He wasn't doing nothin. Killed him for no reason. Yall are fd now. Yall just lost your career. Cold blooded murderers."

I wish I would have posted that one. I think that the man should have taken the L and went on to jail. He was obviously wrong for trying to fight the police. Fight them in court, the justice system is still in place. Live to fight another day. Now someone will put a flower on his grave. Its sad that this had to happen.

Posted

All black people should be able to do whatever they want without police intervention. Rob, murder, rape, sell drugs, pimp, whatever. They should answer to no one. Felony assault on a police officer can only end with the cop being maimed or killed. 
 

This country has a very backwards mentality. Innocent people are going to suffer and be killed due to cops not being allowed to do their jobs. Who are you gonna call when you need help? Ghostbusters?

Posted
54 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

What’s your opinion on this use of force? I’ve seen a few LEO-types post that this was justified because the officer would have been incapacitated if tazed and unable to defend himself.  
 

Mike Tyson said “everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face.” A fight is extremely stressful, whether you’re a pro fighter, untrained civilian, or trained policeman. When a person initiates combat with a policeman, they’re basically putting him/her into an unbelievably stressful position and counting on them to make sound decisions under those conditions.  Sometimes I think that a lot of these people complaining have never been in a fight. 

If Tyson said that, I agree with him.

I believe aTaser is justification to use deadly force IF the person is in position to use it. Unless you are strung out on certain drugs, about 99.% of the time it was completely shut a person down.

 In a unanimous US Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor, they said that the use of force by officers must be viewed by what a reasonable officer in that situation would feel and not what someone may debate in a judge’s chambers several months later. They used the term “split second” decision and rejected the normal totality of circumstances standard. In that case the officers roughed to a completely innocent person who was having a medical crisis but it appeared as though he may have just robbed a store and was resisting. Even though the officers later found out the truth, that rare unanimous SC found in favor of the officers. 

Posted

Think about this.

What in the name of hypocrisy is this by the Atlanta DA’s Office and the Mayor of Atlanta: 

~ A TALE OF TWO INCIDENTS~ 

* Just last week, 5 Atlanta Police Officers were fired for using a taser to remove two college students from a car. 
Officers were fired because the Atlanta District Attorney's Office deemed the officer’s use of the taser in this case constituted DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE. 

* Last night, a suspect who failed a field sobriety test and deemed Driving While Intoxicated resists arrest, fights with police, steals the officers taser (robbery) and escapes. During the pursuit, the suspect turns and fires the taser at the officer's head and was subsequently shot and killed. 
The Atlanta Mayor calls for the officer to be fired because he used unjustified deadly physical force against a taser.

BURNING QUESTION: 

Why are the same people claiming that using a taser is considered Deadly Physical Force when it was used BY a police officer but not Deadly Physical Force when it was used AGAINST a police officer by a suspect?

🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐

 

Posted
1 hour ago, TradenupBH said:

Why are the same people claiming that using a taser is considered Deadly Physical Force when it was used BY a police officer but not Deadly Physical Force when it was used AGAINST a police officer by a suspect?

Is a taser deadly? Has anyone ever died from a taser? Not counting a pre existing condition.

Posted
7 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Is a taser deadly? Has anyone ever died from a taser? Not counting a pre existing condition.

I don’t think a Taser is deadly force but did the mayor use that as a reason for terminating officers and then in a different situation a couple of weeks later, use the opposite reasoning?

 Either you think it is or it isn’t but it shouldn’t be deadly force at 2pm but not at 7pm. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Is a taser deadly? Has anyone ever died from a taser? Not counting a pre existing condition.

I’ve heard a couple of LEOs say “yes,” because once the officer is tazed he’s unable to defend himself. 
Also, my understanding has always been that whatever you do, the cops “go up one level.” They’re not obligated to match your level of force. That’s a common misconception. “I was hitting him, but that’s no reason to hit me with his stick.”

Posted

None of it matters.... I saw an article about the guy that they found hung in a tree in Southern California. People were calling it a lynching, etc... somebody pointed out that practically all of the hangings in the US are suicide, and have been for decades... there has been ZERO indications that this is anything but a typical suicide... to which someone replied...”suicide? Black people don’t just hang themselves from trees.... and even if he did, it’s obvious that he was overwhelmed by all of the racism and oppression, so his blood is on your hands, too!”

Of course it is. 
 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Don't be scared. I understood the rhetorical question. Also, I apologize for answering a question with a question. Bad form.

Scared?  I’m afraid “I’m afraid” is just a figure of speech. I just thought your missed the point. Sorry

Posted
1 minute ago, baddog said:

Scared?  I’m afraid “I’m afraid” is just a figure of speech. I just thought your missed the point. Sorry

It's all good. I was just poking the bad dog thru the fence with a drum stick. Just don't call ASPCA on me. They might want to put something around MY neck.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,283
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Malachi
    Newest Member
    Malachi
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...