YEAH BUT .....

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

Disagree with the gun part, but everything else I pretty much agree with. They had backup coming. A drunk or high guy whose identification and car you have shouldn't be hard to find when he's running/walking.

Not anywhere near as bad as the Floyd incident, but a call about someone sleeping in the drive thru (who had already moved to the parking lot) should not have escalated to shooting someone in the back. The taser wasn't a deadly weapon and the officer dropped his taser to grab his deadly weapon.

Not sure why most of us have been conditioned to believe that deadly force by a police officer is perfectly fine even when their life isn't in danger.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Correct. Killing the man is not justified.

_________________

This x a billion

_________________

I’m not excusing the suspect. I am simply saying he did not need to be shot dead. Just like with high speed chases, there is a point where you let him go. They had his car and knew who he was. He would have been caught. The guy was accused of being drunk. It’s not like he was a massive threat to the community.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Yeah well said Nas.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Exactly

_________________

what we don't see in the videos is how and why did a father of 3 sleeping off a night off drinking in his own vehicle in a fast food parking lot escalate to the cops wrestling with him on the ground in the first place.

And why does this keep happening with the cops, in all manner of scenarios that ought to be resolved with everyone eventually going home to their families alive. George Floyd may or may not have passed a bad twenty--and if he did it's well possible Floyd didn't even know it was counterfeit, as the store owner himself explained. Rayshard Brooks was doing the right thing and not driving drunk by sleeping it off in a well-lit, relatively safe public space.

I wonder in police training, if they had this video and stopped it up until point where the cop shot him, what would the instructor teach these cops to do? If it is shoot to kill, then we need to change the training.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

You have no idea if he would be a threat to the community. He just assaulted two police officers and was trying to run away. What happens if he steals a car and kills someone while drunk driving?

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

Yeah right. Better safe than sorry.

Kill him.

_________________

There’s no doubt that possibility exists. I am just trying to determine the relative risks and what type of society I want to live in. I’ve made my opinion known.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

"The guy was assaulting officers with their own LESS THAN LETHAL weapon, you guys!"

Also, "less than lethal" doesn't mean "not deadly". Considering his first assault on the officers in resisting arrest, and the fact that he grabbed and took one of their weapons, THEN assaulted them numerous times with that weapon, even firing it at them, means he posed a threat to the lives of those officers. Stop glossing over what the guy actually did.

Do you understand what you are saying? Because it's possible that a drunk man running on foot could possibly take a car from someone and kill someone driving, THAT makes it okay for him to be shot in the back. Is that really the world you want to live in? Giving the government license to take a life for something that could happen. Eventually that comes to your door.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Exactly. He hits the officer with taser and that allows him to take the officer's gun. Then you have a potential shootout which could result in innocent bystanders being hit.

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

We’re not excusing the suspect’s actions. We think deadly force needs to be curtailed except in the most extreme circumstances.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

It's sad that this will get swept up in the same conversation as the Floyd one as these are clearly different. This dude does not belong in the same conversation imo.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

So you think officers should just let a guy go who violently resisted them then assaulted them with their "less-lethal" weapon? He doesn't pose a threat to them?

Yes you are, that's exactly what you're doing. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You want a world where people can assault police officers with weapons and get away with it. And before you try to weasel out of it: You literally advocate letting the guy go instead of stopping the threat he unquestionably (to people of sound mind and rationality) poses.

He turned and engaged the officer with the taser; that poses a threat to the officer. If he never shoots the taser, then it becomes less clear if the officer was justified in using lethal force.

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

What the guy actually did didn't warrant him getting shot in the back. It's really that simple.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Oh so The Usual Suspects are fine with police killing another man. Go figure.

_________________

"Blue Lives Don't Matter"

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

He got shot when he turned to again assault the officers with the weapon he took from one of them during the violent struggle he instigated. Do you think he didn't pose a threat to officers?

A taser isn't a deadly weapon. Besides, the officer wasn't running with his service weapon in his hand. He dropped his taser after the guy turned and grabbed his service weapon and fired at the guy's back.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

The sleeping in the car didn't warrant it...the stealing and pointing of the taser did.

_________________

A violent struggle he instigated by sleeping in his car? Why didn't one of the officers immediately kill him when he took the taser? He didn't pose a deadly threat to them that's why. That didn't change while he was running.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Brooks was hit by the officer's taser and didn't go down. If the officer gets tasered, Brooks can take his weapon.

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

Oh, so you DO want to talk about threat level? A taser is an incapacitating weapon (which CAN be deadly, don't try to pretend it isn't), and when used on an officer it is an attempt to incapacitate an officer's defenses. That poses a major threat to officer safety, and officers have a right to prevent and neutralize that threat. Same as reaching for a cop's gun during a struggle: Grabbing the cop's gun isn't "deadly", but it is an attempt to neutralize the officer's ability to defend themselves, which in and of itself is a threat.