Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

Because you are drunk perhaps?

Thats is a you were drunk and she had a short skirt kinda line

GreeBo

ronivek wrote: »

I’m pretty sure the vast majority are using the word ‘defund’ to mean reduce funding; not remove it completely. No doubt there are a handful of anarchist types who really do mean zero funding; but they’re a tiny minority.

They want to reduce the actual number of police and have them only focus on policing, not solving all of societies issues.
Today in the US you call 911 for anything, it's impossible to train everyone for every situation

GreeBo

Danzy wrote: »

Thats is a you were drunk and she had a short skirt kinda line

Not at all. If bring drunk is a search sentence then make it that in law, otherwise you have to expect drunk people to act differently than sober people and people with mental health issues etc etc

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

Not at all. If bring drunk is a search sentence then make it that in law, otherwise you have to expect drunk people to act differently than sober people and people with mental health issues etc etc

It's not always a mitigating factor.

He could still kill.

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is almost never an equivalent level of stress or urgency when a taser is discharged by police to where a firearm is discharged. It seems to be an extremely shaky conclusion that just because people miss more when folks believe their life is in imminent danger, they will miss equally when the situation is less critical.

Hang on though the taser was either a life threatening situation that needed deadly force or it wasn't, you can't have it both ways!

If there was no imminent threat to life, why shoot at him 3 times?!

Tea drinker

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Why start that that point?

Why not start elsewhere? Like why would you let a suspect take your taser??
Or
Why can’t two cops restrain a drunk guy?

We've literally just had cop shot by his own firearm in the past few days.
It happens that people in close quarters can surprise you.
Have you ever fought with a drunk, have you ever tried to restrain someone burly etc. I think you are making cheap points and that's their value.

GreeBo

Danzy wrote: »

It's not always a mitigating factor.

He could still kill.

Sure, but so could anyone, but we don't just shoot everyone.

GreeBo

2u2me wrote: »

The one's complaining about how broken the police system is don't seem to realize it's actually working as intended to.

If the US changed their policy and started letting people like this go instead of shooting them.. what would happen next?
Everything might be fine and rosey for a few weeks, a few months even; but then one day someone let go by the police will end up killing someone else.

What will happen then? Outcries and rage from the public about how the police could have stopped them earlier and instead decided to let them go. Change the policy immediately; no scum should be allowed to endanger other members of the public, etc.. etc..

Whatever way you set it up; it's not going to be perfect. It definitely could be better than it currently is; but this seems to require more funding for training; which is ironically the opposite of what the protestors are advocating for.

Firstly the net result would be the same, we already have s dead member of the public.
Secondly that happens all day everyday, people on bail and released early reoffend.

If the person in the nearby car had been killed would it change your opinion on the shooting? Then we would have two dead members of the public... To what end? Stopping a drunk guy from walking home to the address you already have? ****, they could have just driven there and waited for him.

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure, but so could anyone, but we don't just shoot everyone.

Lol.

Does everyone attack police so brutally and fire weapons at them.

I'm not attacking your religion it's yours and it is a important to you.

I'm just trying to understand it.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

He was a family beater, young or old, they got full force punches.

Source?

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

Source?

His multiple accounts of felony battery against family and kids.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

His multiple accounts of felony battery against family and kids.

I was aware of the generic child abuse charges but not felony battery. Seems as the thread lingers the rap sheet of a dead man keeps getting longer to justify why he needed to be murdered

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I was aware of the generic child abuse charges but not felony battery. Seems as the thread lingers the rap sheet of a dead man keeps getting longer to justify why he needed to be murdered

He wasn't murdered.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He wasn't murdered.

Yes, he was. The officer stands charged with felony murder.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, he was. The officer stands charged with felony murder.

Doesn't mean he committed murder. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.

Did you watch the video?

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Doesn't mean he committed murder. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.

Do you need a conviction to see a murder unfold? I saw a murder. I also saw the killer cop endanger innocent lives.

Bonniedog

Overheal wrote: »

I was aware of the generic child abuse charges but not felony battery. Seems as the thread lingers the rap sheet of a dead man keeps getting longer to justify why he needed to be murdered

Brooks' form is the main reason the Dems did not make a bigger issue of it or let the BLM dogs off the leash.

There is a limit on long you can make heroes out of dirtbags.

Would there be massive protests if a scuzzball here was killed by cops?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Do you need a conviction to see a murder unfold? I saw a murder. I also saw the killer cop endanger innocent lives.

Describe what you saw. Just some bullet points of the key events.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Describe what you saw. Just some bullet points of the key events.

Getting pedantic are we?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Getting pedantic are we?

I want you to tell me what happened. You say you saw a man getting murdered. I watched the video and didn't see that. So it should be interesting to hear your version of it.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I want you to tell me what happened. You say you saw a man getting murdered. I watched the video and didn't see that. So it should be interesting to hear your version of it.

If you didn’t see it you’re beyond my help.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

If you didn’t see it you’re beyond my help.

I don't want your help. I want you to tell me what you saw because I don't believe you watched it.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't want your help. I want you to tell me what you saw because I don't believe you watched it.

I don’t give a toss what you believe, as it isn’t true.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t give a toss what you believe, as it isn’t true.

This is not how this would have panned out if you had watched a video of a clear murder. You'd have simply pointed to each event in the video that backed up your assertion.

I'll ask a more simple question then. Why do you think it was murder?

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is not how this would have panned out if you had watched a video of a clear murder. You'd have simply pointed to each event in the video that backed up your assertion.

I'll ask a more simple question then. Why do you think it was murder?

Because it was, and he rightly sits behind bars charged with it.

There’s no need to belabor over the details again as if it hasn’t been done a dozen times in the thread already, the only sense in you asking that is pedantic deflection.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is not how this would have panned out if you had watched a video of a clear murder. You'd have simply pointed to each event in the video that backed up your assertion.

I'll ask a more simple question then. Why do you think it was murder?

Because it was, and he rightly sits behind bars charged with it.

There’s no need to belabor over the details again as if it hasn’t been done a dozen times in the thread already, the only sense in you asking that is pedantic deflection.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Because it was, and he rightly sits behind bars charged with it.

There’s no need to belabor over the details again as if it hasn’t been done a dozen times in the thread already, the only sense in you asking that is pedantic deflection.

Can you define what a Person of Colour is yet? Speaking of deflections

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can you define what a Person of Colour is yet? Speaking of deflections

Yes, speaking of deflections you clearly don’t need it explained to you. Your asking this constantly is yet another deflection of the topic.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Because it was, and he rightly sits behind bars charged with it.

There’s no need to belabor over the details again as if it hasn’t been done a dozen times in the thread already, the only sense in you asking that is pedantic deflection.

It's pedantic deflection to ask you why you think it was murder, when so many others don't think it was?

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, speaking of deflections you clearly don’t need it explained to you. Your asking this constantly is yet another deflection of the topic.

You clearly can't offer a definition, as you've dodged multiple times at time point, in favor making wildly inaccurate claims.