The Atlanta shooting
From the video I seen, and from what I heard about how it went down, to me it looks like the police shooting in Atlanta was justified. Why the Atlanta Mayor would want the two police officers fired before any investigation shows the type of incompetent corrupt mayor she may be. Why would the Atlanta Police Chief feel that she had to resign this morning?!The officer had no other choice but to shoot Brooks, since Brooks had one of the officer's taser and turned around with taser in hand and had planned on using it against the officer. Now, as to why the officer felt the need to shoot Brooks three times remains to be seen.
This is not another George Floyd in my opinion.
But when it comes to more and more people objecting, rioting, and burning anything and everything in site no matter if the police is justified, to me I chalk it up to more useful idiots doing the devil's work. Unfortunately, evil is growing more and more in these times.
Feel free to add your opinion on this event.
Comments (89)
Judge for Y'all's selves.
After what happened in Minneapolis don't you think that this person was terrified .A taser versus three armed police, do me a favour.
I thought the whole idea of tasers was to save lives by incapacitating people without causing death.
Whether their efficacy is all it's cracked up to be is a matter for debate, but if that's the premiss for using them, that they subdue without being a threat to life, why all of a sudden is a man running away from police with a taser considered a threat to their lives?
On this side of the pond we'd call that 'moving the goal posts': the narrative surrounding the justification of taser usage by police does not justify shooting a man dead who is in possession of one, unless you change the narrative and hope that noone notices.
I think you can safely go ahead and be utterly disgusted, or outraged that inherent bias (it's safe if we use them, but a threat to our lives if you do) in the police force has resulted in yet another death of a member of the public.
First of all he was struggling to preserve his own safety, secondly he didn't use the Taser and thirdly he was no longer a danger to the police, he was running away and was shot in the back and killed.
So in summary he was shot to death because he stole a Taser.
Justifying the use of deadly force by the officer here is questionable. Tazers by law are not considered lethal. I think the stress of the moment was just too much for him and he made a regrettable decision.
A stand-your-ground law establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible.
Even without wide scale implementation of this law, the perceived threat portion has become standard of the land.
There is no doubt the US is gun happy nation. Resultantly the police here consider it a necessity that they too carry guns. But the level of police weaponry and application escalated after 1994 when congress initiated a give away program of unused military equipment. With that law police forces were reborn as paramilitary units instead of extensions of the community they serve. And yet another US verses THEM battle was the result.
Right You Are
During the BLM protests in Ferguson, Cops moved in with an armored personnel carrier bearing a mounted machine gun.
Observed an Iraq War vet, "We didn't go into Fallujah with something like that."
Tracing it back to the Crime Bill of '94 ...
It's not an issue Exclusive to the U.S., however ...
A.C.A.B. is an International Movement opposed to over policing & militarized police -
The 1st word in Police State is ... POLICE.
These days even a white guy like myself knows best to keep your hands emptied and in open sight when confronting a law officer. Likewise you should avoid direct eye contact and say "Yes Sir" a lot. OF course given I am white and a well educated elderly citizen, the situation quickly becomes one where I am the one being Yes Sir'ed"
I generally don't tell personally stories. But I got pulled over for running a stop sign when I working a teacher in Detroit. Two big hunking policemen approached my car with hands on their holstered guns. By the time the conversation ended they consoled me on how to "beat the ticket" and thanked me for being a teacher.
Anyway I found this for you.
Taser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For the record producer, see Tazer (musician). For the punk rock band, see Tazers. For other uses, see Taser (disambiguation).
A TASER device, with cartridge removed, making an electric arc between its two electrodes
Police issue X26 TASER device with cartridge installed
Taser /'te?z?r/ is a brand of conducted electrical weapon sold by Axon, formerly TASER International. It fires two small barbed darts intended to puncture the skin and remain attached to the target. The darts are connected to the main unit by thin insulated copper wire and deliver a modulated electric current designed to disrupt voluntary control of muscles, causing "neuromuscular incapacitation". The effects of a TASER device may only be localized pain or strong involuntary long muscle contractions, based on the mode of use and connectivity of the darts. The TASER device is marketed as less-lethal since the possibility of serious injury or death exists whenever the weapon is deployed.
The first TASER conducted energy weapon was introduced in 1993 as a less-lethal force option for police to use to subdue fleeing, belligerent, or potentially dangerous people, who would have otherwise been subjected to more lethal force options such as firearms. A 2009 report by the Police Executive Research Forum in the United States found that police officer injuries dropped by 76% in large law enforcement agencies that deployed TASER devices in the first decade of the 21st century compared with those that did not use them at all. TASER International and its CEO Rick Smith have claimed that unspecified "police surveys" show that the device has "saved 75,000 lives through 2011". A more recent academic study suggested police use of conducted electrical weapons in the United States was less risky to police officers than hands-on tactics and showed officer injury rates equal to use of chemical sprays like oleoresin capsicum. However, when police combined conducted electrical weapons with use of other weapons, officers were four or five times more likely to be injured than when using a baton or chemical spray.[
And for every treatise that arrived at One conclusion, a dozen others would conclude Otherwise.
PS. Do you want your essay graded with a percentage, or alphabetically?
Reaching One conclusion or Otherwise concluded?
I aim to please -- Especially if there's grading involved.
And yes I know about a Liibertarian is.. How Libertarianism came into being and evolved. I enjoy the writings of
Milton Friedman. He had an interesting mind. But I am going to stop there because I don't care to argue the fine points with you.
A presee will do, just to give me an idea of the cultural shift brought about by law enforcement using cast off military weapons.
As Mic suggested, this is not a simple one size fits all situation.
"Reuters reporting, which included the most complete accounting to date of fatalities following Taser shocks, showed that many cases involved high-risk subjects, such as people agitated by drugs or mental illness, people with heart problems, people who are very young or very old or very frail."
Also, I wonder did these police know how a Taser works.
"When officers fire the taser at suspects, a protective cover blows off the cartridge and two spear-shaped probes are released and attach to the suspect. Often, this shot can be taken up to 30 feet away, or 7.6 meters. An electrical circuit is created between the taser and the suspect."
When you fire a Taser do you need to aim it at your target?
Can you fire repeatedly over your shoulder while running away from your target and hope to hit it?
Are the wires longer than 30 feet?
How many times can the Taser shoot prongs?
Were the police officers lives in danger?
This farce reminded me of kids playing with toy guns, when they shoot at you they shout Bang and when you won't fall down they keep shooting wildly and shouting that you're dead. I suppose nobody told these guys that when you grow up you can't keep doing that.
If Brooks would have used that taser on that officer, that officer would have been at the mercy of Brooks, and therefore may have also gotten the officer's gun and killed him with it afterwards as well.
I went through the police academy years ago and a few things one is thought is you don't shoot to injure, you shoot to kill. And you aim at the center mass of the body, not the leg or arm. When you are in the struggle for your life as a cop, you throw out all the rules when it becomes survival time.
No doubt it's freshest in the minds of black men in the US.
There were also two police officers, so one could cover the other. If Rayshard Brooks had somehow managed to tase one of the officers whilst running away, turned tail, advanced on the officer and reached for his gun, I'd accept your argument that shooting him dead in self-, r other-defence was justified.
What were you taught about de-escalating a situation where a man resisted detention and wanted to run away?
Jac, the man failed a field sobriety test. Brooks escalated this situation when he started resisting to be taken into custody.
Perhaps you would be a good candidate for a police officer if you can take a punch to the face, and have a suspect run off with your weapon and then point it at you with the intention of causing bodily harm. Consider you might have a second or two to decide if the weapon he is holding is a gun or the taser he stole. You also have to do some quick calculations as to the distance between him and you. Guess wrong and you could be dead. I guess most people probably wouldn't be able to make perfect decisions in situations like that. We need super people like you to come do the job.
Perhaps you would be a good candidate for a police officer if you can take a punch to the face, and have a suspect run off with your weapon and then point it at you with the intention of causing bodily harm. Consider you might have a second or two to decide if the weapon he is holding is a gun or the taser he stole. You also have to do some quick calculations as to the distance between him and you. Guess wrong and you could be dead. I guess most people probably wouldn't be able to make perfect decisions in situations like that. We need super people like you to come do the job. handshake You're hired.
Is that because you weren't taught how to do that in police academy?
If anything, the officer should not have given up control of his taser.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree!
I had seen the other two videos before I commented.
This video is helpful for my argument, because it shows the policeman's relentless determination to arrest the man, who was able to stand, without falling around and was able to carry on a conversation. He also offered to walk home.
The law probably states that if you are sitting in the drivers seat and have the keys in your possession that you are in control of the vehicle, which gave the police cause to engage him in conversation. That is the law and we have to follow it, but a judgement call can still be be made.
The whole scenario can be broken into three events, each can be judged separately in the eyes of the law.
1.The conversation, Which I have covered.
2. The resisting arrest and struggle. This can be seen in a video. After this event all three stood up uninjured and were able to walk away or run or do nothing.
3. The chase. A video shows this. The Man had taken the Taser from the policeman, for whatever reason and started running away. The policemen chose to chase him for whatever reason. One at least kept firing his weapon at the man until either the man fell or the gun ran out of bullets. As you said he was shooting to kill. That would have been ok if it occurred during the struggle. There was no excuse to fire on the man now when he, the policeman, was not in mortal danger or in any danger if he did not give chase.
If this was a man who was armed and had just shot up a school or some similar situation, I would say shoot to kill definitely. But to wake a guy from a peaceful slumber and chase him down and kill him?
You think this is Justified? By the way this has nothing to do with race or any other sidebar issues in my mind, it's a case of shooting to kill when not necessary.
That is not a well thought out response to their posts, but an emotional attack because they challenged your ideas. Maybe that might qualify you to get hired on the spot.
Couldn't have put it better myself . Well spoken.
What would happen to those cops if they let him go and he came back and got his car and killed someone?