Current Events > Liberals are getting their dream, atlanta cops quitting right now

(+) Yeah! (+)

rahasperj posted...

Strange, I didn't mention the suspect being drunk once in my points, yet you planted it in to have an argument and implying that I said he deserved to be shot because he was drunk. That's a lie.

Also, if his intent was not to harm anyone, he wouldn't have grabbed a weapon. Sure he wanted to get away, but he was willing to hurt an innocent person to make it happen. That makes him a threat.

The man was a danger and armed, the police lost their non lethal option.

Chasing and arresting him is a non lethal option.

They werent in danger because the taser had been deployed already.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'm only responding to what people are saying

"Well he was drunk and ran so you reap what you sow!"

Also speaks volumes that you've ignored every point I made to complain about me responding points other people made because those points are dumb

Again, never once did I mention him being drunk.

You did that.

You said that's what I said.

It wasn't.

Go back to the post nowhere do I mention it. And the post is unedited, so you know I didn't change it later.

---

rahasperj posted...

Strange, I didn't mention the suspect being drunk once in my points, yet you planted it in to have an argument and implying that I said he deserved to be shot because he was drunk. That's a lie.

Also, if his intent was not to harm anyone, he wouldn't have grabbed a weapon. Sure he wanted to get away, but he was willing to hurt an innocent person to make it happen. That makes him a threat.

That's insane.

"That fleeing man is a threat, we have to shoot him in the back."

The man was a danger and armed, the police lost their non lethal option.

No they didn't. What the fuck?

See this right here is the problem.

you do not lose your non lethal options because a drunk guy is fleeing. If you believe that you shouldn't be in the force.

Any cop in Europe or New Zealand or Canada or Australia or Japan who said that would be fired tomorrow.

Jesus Christ.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'm only responding to what people are saying

"Well he was drunk and ran so you reap what you sow!"

Also speaks volumes that you've ignored every point I made to complain about me responding points other people made because those points are dumb

Because everything you say is exactly the fucking same. NOT ONE PERSON EVER SAID THIS. He got ARRESTED for a DUI and SHOT for resisting and assaulting two officers. Period.

Annihilated posted...

Because everything you say is exactly the fucking same. NOT ONE PERSON EVER SAID THIS. He got ARRESTED for a DUI and SHOT for resisting and assaulting two officers. Period.

He was shot in the back while running away.

"assaulting 2 officers" was him trying to run away.

You can't just ignore that. You're lying about reality to make out a situation that did not occur. He wasn't beating the officers, he wasn't risking their lives, the fact he was shot in the back while fleeing proves it.

Unless he had lethal farts that could destroy Manhattan the cop who shot him did not need to shoot him and I'll repeat in Europe or New Zealand or Canada or Australia or Japan would not have done. The perp would just have been arrested.

You can't ignore that. You can't expect everyone else to ignore that just because you want to.

And you can't handwave the police incompetence that led to that situation.

You're literally holding the drunk dude in a parking lot to a higher standard than cops. And that's insane.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's insane.

"That fleeing man is a threat, we have to shoot him in the back."

No they didn't. What the fuck?

See this right here is the problem.

you do not lose your non lethal options because a drunk guy is fleeing. If you believe that you shouldn't be in the force.

Any cop in Europe or New Zealand or Canada or Australia or Japan who said that would be fired tomorrow.

Jesus Christ.

This fleeing man is a threat and must be subdued.

That's probably more accurate to what the thought process was.

---

rahasperj posted...

This fleeing man is a threat and must be subdued.

That's probably more accurate to what the thought process was.

You don't have to shoot a fleeing man in the back to subdue them.

Also on my list of "Things I shouldn't have to explain"
---

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

Eyewitness statement from one of the cops said the taser had already been deployed twice and was effectively useless.

Which means the officer in question knew this and decided to shoot him anyway.

Its lazy policing. He didnt wanna chase the suspect and decided to shoot him in the back.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

And you can't handwave the police incompetence that led to that situation.

You're literally holding the drunk dude in a parking lot to a higher standard than cops. And that's insane.

I agree with these.

But it doesn't change the fact that the man attempted to harm two officers to get away.

Side note, you seem to care about him being drunk a lot more than anyone else.

---

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

Eyewitness statement from one of the cops said the taser had already been deployed twice and was effectively useless.

Which means the officer in question knew this and decided to shoot him anyway.

Its lazy policing. He didnt wanna chase the suspect and decided to shoot him in the back.

Yeah you're not going to get a response

Or at least they'll quote one sentence and say some emotionally charged nonsense about "Reap What You Sow" and "His fleeing was a threat to the people!"
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You don't have to shoot a fleeing man in the back to subdue them.

Also on my list of "Things I shouldn't have to explain"

You're right, they probably should've tased hi-.....

Oh.

That's right.

---

rahasperj posted...

Side note, you seem to care about him being drunk a lot more than anyone else.

That's literally what caused all this.

"He's a criminal so he deserved to be shot in the back" is predicated on him being a drunk driver.

You can't ignore that just because it's so absurd. You have to point out how absurd it is.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

He was shot in the back while running away.

"assaulting 2 officers" was him trying to run away.

You can't just ignore that. You're lying about reality to make out a situation that did not occur. He wasn't beating the officers, he wasn't risking their lives, the fact he was shot in the back while fleeing proves it.

Unless he had lethal farts that could destroy Manhattan the cop who shot him did not need to shoot him and I'll repeat in Europe or New Zealand or Canada or Australia or Japan would not have done. The perp would just have been arrested.

You can't ignore that. You can't expect everyone else to ignore that just because you want to.

And you can't handwave the police incompetence that led to that situation.

You're literally holding the drunk dude in a parking lot to a higher standard than cops. And that's insane.

Assaulting two officers was HOW he ran away. You can't ignore that. WITH one of their weapons. You can't ignore that. And he was unstable and a threat to others. You can't ignore that. You can't expect everyone else to ignore that just because you want to.

rahasperj posted...

You're right, they probably should've tased hi-.....

Oh.

That's right.

They couldve chased him

---

Tasers are known to be risky weapons. They malfunction all the time. Ive had to shoot the same cartridge twice. Some tasers have cartridge attachments on it, the suspect didnt know that. His intention was to hit the officer with it

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

Tasers are known to be risky weapons. They malfunction all the time. Ive had to shoot the same carriage twice. Some tasers have cartridge attachments on it, the suspect didnt know that. His intention was to hit the officer with it

The cop knew it had been deployed and said it was useless at that point.

Firsthand knowledge from an officer involved in the incident.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's literally what caused all this.

"He's a criminal so he deserved to be shot in the back" is predicated on him being a drunk driver.

You can't ignore that just because it's so absurd. You have to point out how absurd it is.

That's... Not right...

If that were the case every drunk driver ever would be getting gunned down in the streets.

He was shot because he attempted to harm two officers, and took away the non-lethal options. His intention was to harm the officers. That makes him a threat.

---

Annihilated posted...

Assaulting two officers was HOW he ran away. You can't ignore that. WITH one of their weapons. You can't ignore that. And he was unstable and a threat to others. You can't ignore that. You can't expect everyone else to ignore that just because you want to.

I'm not ignoring any of that.

None of it means he should be shot in the back while running away

And none of it justifies the police incompetence.

That's what you keep ignoring.

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

They couldve chased him

Or put out an arrest warrant, or called back up or any number of things.

Mark_DeRosa posted...

Tasers are known to be risky weapons. They malfunction all the time. Ive had to shoot the same carriage twice. Some tasers have cartridge attachments on it, the suspect didnt know that. His intention was to hit the officer with it

His intention was to run away.

He didn't have to get shot in the back for that.

You can't shoot a fleeing man in the back and claim your life was in danger because he had taser that wouldn't work which he took from you because you're bad at your job.

That is not justice of effective policing. This is such a silly hill to die on and demonstrates why the protests are ongoing.
---

That isn't dispositive on its own.

---

rahasperj posted...

That's... Not right...

If that were the case every drunk driver ever would be getting gunned down in the streets.

He was shot because he attempted to harm two officers, and took away the non-lethal options. His intention was to harm the officers. That makes him a threat.

Why are you ignoring that they couldve simply chased him?

---

rahasperj posted...

If that were the case every drunk driver ever would be getting gunned down in the streets.

According to these cops and DarkPrince, if they tried to run away they would have every right to be because they resisted arrest and might be a danger in the future

Chasing and arrest warrants don't exist because shooting in the back is easier
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You can't shoot a fleeing man in the back and claim your life was in danger because he had taser that wouldn't work which he took from you.

Again, another thing I agree with. If you would just condense your argument into these few good points and reinforce them, you would have an amazing argument. But you keep filling it with BS like:

"They shot him because he was drunk."

""This wouldn't happen elsewhere."

It weakens your position overall.

---

rahasperj posted...

"They shot him because he was drunk."

Exactly. Thats why I stopped responding. He jsut keeps saying the same thing over and over to minimize the suspects actions

---

vigorm0rtis posted...

I know.

---

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

Why are you ignoring that they couldve simply chased him?

Ok, sure let's do that.

They start chasing him, but he's fast. Very fast.

He flees to a friend's house with the officers in pursuit.

He and his friend arm himself, and are now in a firefight with the police.

That scenario not your bag? Ok let's try this one, since you love him being drunk so much.

He gets away. The police officers never find him.

He goes out drinking again, gets hammered.

Drives home completely smashed.

Hits someone and kills them both.

That one not good for you either? I've got more if you'd like.

---

rahasperj posted...

Again, another thing I agree with. If you would just condense your argument into these few good points and reinforce them, you would have an amazing argument. But you keep filling it with BS like:

"They shot him because he was drunk."

""This wouldn't happen elsewhere."

It weakens your position overall.

Lol those are not the only 2 things I've said.

I've said like 500 things.

Those are just the only 2 you're taking out of all context and responding too.

Since you're ignoring my points. Why not listen to the Fulton County DA's thoughts:



We have concluded at the time Mr Brooks was shot that he did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or officers,

Rolfe admitted that he knew the taser was not functional and he was in no danger.

And the other cop Devin Brosnan who stood on the corpse is openly willing to testify against Rolfe.

So you're claiming a threat over the cop who was on the scene and the DA who examied the scene to say a drunk guy fleeing is a threat who needs to be shot twice in the back

That's nonsense
---

Mayor of Atlanta is black
DA is black
Over 50 percent of Atlanta cops are black

Getting tougher and tougher to go with the 'systemic racism' line, dudes.


---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Lol those are not the only 2 things I've said.

I've said like 500 things.

Those are just the only 2 you're taking out of all context and responding too.

Since you're ignoring my points. Why not listen to the Fulton County DA's thoughts:

We have concluded at the time Mr Brooks was shot that he did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or officers,

Rolfe admitted that he knew the taser was not functional and he was in no danger.

And the other cop Devin Brosnan who stood on the corpse is opening willing to testify against Rolfe.

So you're claiming a threat over the cop who was on the scene and the DA who examied the scene to say a drunk guy fleeing is a threat who needs to be shot twice in the back

That's nonsense

Very well, get all of your points. Condense them, and I will go through and tell you which ones I agree with, and which ones I don't.

Easy as pie for you to do, if you truly believe all of your points are valid.

---

rahasperj posted...

He flees to a friend's house with the officers in pursuit.

He and his friend arm himself, and are now in a firefight with the police.

Okay this isn't how cause and effect works.

What if police gun down a girl who stole a bag of doritos from the 7-11

Then go "Well what if she ran away to her friends house, they armed themselves with AR-15s, shot us, went to the local school, killed 75 children, built a bomb, then blew up Tulsa again.... See we just had to respond to the potential threat."

Police don't get to do that. They only get to respond to the threat at the time. Hypothetical absurdities do not justify shooting people.

Hell pretend you weren't talking about police and use the same logic.

Imagine if Ron shot Billy and then said "Well Billy might have been up to something....."

Remember Ahmaud Arbery? Who knows what hypothetically could have occured if he wasn't shot. Except he would fucking be alive right now so who gives a shit about hypothetical futures that didn't occur?
---

@Skiggie posted...

Mayor of Atlanta is black
DA is black
Over 50 percent of Atlanta cops are black

Getting tougher and tougher to go with the 'systemic racism' line, dudes.

so, like, do you not know what systematic racism is?

cause by this post it doesnt look like you have a clue what that term means.

---

rahasperj posted...

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

Why are you ignoring that they couldve simply chased him?

Ok, sure let's do that.

They start chasing him, but he's fast. Very fast.

He flees to a friend's house with the officers in pursuit.

He and his friend arm himself, and are now in a firefight with the police.

That scenario not your bag? Ok let's try this one, since you love him being drunk so much.

He gets away. The police officers never find him.

He goes out drinking again, gets hammered.

Drives home completely smashed.

Hits someone and kills them both.

That one not good for you either? I've got more if you'd like.

and what if he acquired a nuclear weapon and turned the entire Atlanta area into a radioactive wasteland?

or what if he did biological weapons development as a hobby and was working on a new strain of Coronavirus?

you just gotta think about these things, you know

treewojima posted...

and what if he acquired a nuclear weapon and turned the entire Atlanta area into a radioactive wasteland?

or what if he did biological weapons development as a hobby and was working on a new strain of Coronavirus?

you just gotta think about these things, you know

Who knows he might do something radically dangerous and harmful like become a cop and then shoot people in the back when they run away.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Okay this isn't how cause and effect works.

What if police gun down a girl who stole a bag of doritos from the 7-11

Then go "Well what if she ran away to her friends house, they armed themselves with AR-15s, shot us, went to the local school, killed 75 children, built a bomb, then blew up Tulsa again.... See we just had to respond to the potential threat."

I laughed very hard. That was hilarious. This is not meant in anyway to be sarcastic, it's just that the way you wrote that was very funny, and I thank you for the laugh. Now, with that said.

The girl who stole a bag of Doritos didn't fight the cops, steal there taser, and attempt to use it on them. That's the key difference. That girl simply did some petty shoplifting, a crime that puts nobody's life in danger, and she didn't resist arrest and fight with the officers.

Quite a poor example really.

Police don't get to do that. They only get to respond to the threat at the time. Hypothetical absurdities do not justify shooting people.

Another statement I agree with. That's a good argument, so quit padding it with a bunch of useless repetitive BS.

---

rahasperj posted...

Ok, sure let's do that.

They start chasing him, but he's fast. Very fast.

He flees to a friend's house with the officers in pursuit.

He and his friend arm himself, and are now in a firefight with the police.

That scenario not your bag? Ok let's try this one, since you love him being drunk so much.

He gets away. The police officers never find him.

He goes out drinking again, gets hammered.

Drives home completely smashed.

Hits someone and kills them both.

That one not good for you either? I've got more if you'd like.

So were making up scenarios to justify shooting a man in the back now?

Fleeing to a friends house to get guns and shoot at the cops? Really? Is that how you think (black)people think?

Dawg I just got away from the feds! Get the strap and lets rode on these fools!

You watch too much tv. And dude wasnt gonna be able to drive anywhere, he left his car with the cops when he ran away.

So youd really rather sit up here and make up outlandish scenarios to justify a bad shoot rather than admit the cops may have fucked up?

---

rahasperj posted...

Ok, sure let's do that.

They start chasing him, but he's fast. Very fast.

He flees to a friend's house with the officers in pursuit.

He and his friend arm himself, and are now in a firefight with the police.

That scenario not your bag? Ok let's try this one, since you love him being drunk so much.

He gets away. The police officers never find him.

He goes out drinking again, gets hammered.

Drives home completely smashed.

Hits someone and kills them both.

That one not good for you either? I've got more if you'd like.

How about this one. They already know who he is and where he lives. They arrest him at 6 AM the next day.

---

treewojima posted...

and what if he acquired a nuclear weapon and turned the entire Atlanta area into a radioactive wasteland?

or what if he did biological weapons development as a hobby and was working on a new strain of Coronavirus?

you just gotta think about these things, you know

Another the ng I laughed at. You guys are funny people, there's no reason we can't be friends.

---

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

So were making up scenarios to justify shooting a man in the back now?

Fleeing to a friends house to get guns and shoot at the cops? Really? Is that how you think (black)people think?

Dawg I just got away from the feds! Get the strap and lets rode on these fools!

You watch too much tv. And dude wasnt gonna be able to drive anywhere, he left his car with the cops when he ran away.

So youd really rather sit up here and make up outlandish scenarios to justify a bad shoot rather than admit the cops may have fucked up?

Ah, I knew someone would pull it eventually.

The race card!

With this trap activated, all of your arguments are nullified, and you are labeled racist for the remainder of the duel.

Jokes aside, truth be told, didn't even know the guys race, and, guess what, it doesn't matter. Because the police get in shootouts with all ethnicities. I saw one in person last summer when ATF raided a neighbor down the street and it went South. Guess what? It was a crack den, and they were all as white as the snow they were snorting dude.

So get the hell out of here with that race BS.

---

Also, to be noted is my previous two edits were simply grammatical errors being fixed.

---

Some people really want to justify executing black people.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Some people really want to justify executing black people.

I kinda agree except I'd go a step further and say it's a male thing.

If this was a chick who got shot twice in the back while fleeing from a cop who confessed he was not in danger, no one would be pretending it was justified except DarkPrince.

The whole thing is built on sterotypes.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Some people really want to justify executing black people.

Didn't know the guys race and didn't care.

Now that I do, I've decided that I still don't care.

---

rahasperj posted...

Ah, I knew someone would pull it eventually.

The race card!

With this trap activated, all of your arguments are nullified, and you are labeled racist for the remainder of the duel.

Jokes aside, truth be told, didn't even know the guys race, and, guess what, it doesn't matter. Because the police get in shootouts with all ethnicities. I saw one in person last summer when ATF raided a neighbor down the street and it went South. Guess what? It was a crack den, and they were all as white as the snow they were snorting dude.

So get the hell out of here with that race BS.

Thats why I put it in parentheses, because I was unsure if you knew the race of man involved. It was a way of asking two separate questions at the same time.

And no my argument is not invalid, as it is backed by facts, unlike yours that is based off of made up tv scenarios.

---

The 'shot in the back' case is fairly weak.

He was shot a split-second after he turned to fire the taser. As soon as he turned to fire, the cop made his decision to fire.

If you're a cop in that moment, you don't have time to think about the course of action. You react to the danger you perceive.

---

Skiggie posted...

The 'shot in the back' case is fairly weak.

He was shot a split-second after he turned to fire the taser. As soon as he turned to fire, the cop made his decision to fire.

If you're a cop in that moment, you don't have time to think about the course of action. You react to the danger you perceive.

You mean fire the useless taser that the cop knew was useless? He knew he wasnt in danger.

---

That man was dangerous. If he had tased the cops he probably would have executed them on site. A man that beats and abuses children would have no problem doing that to the cops too.

---

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

You mean fire the useless taser that the cop knew was useless? He knew he wasnt in danger.

Not only that, the cop fired twice.

And since both shots hit the back, it wasn't much of a "turn"

That man did not need to die.
---

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

You mean fire the useless taser that the cop knew was useless? He knew he wasnt in danger.

According to the DA, state law says Brooks used a "deadly weapon"

---

ReturnOfThaJedi posted...

Thats why I put it in parentheses, because I was unsure if you knew the race of man involved. It was a way of asking two separate questions at the same time.

And no my argument is not invalid, as it is backed by facts, unlike yours that is based off of made up tv scenarios.

---

---

---