Revealed: officer who killed Rayshard Brooks accused of covering up 2015 shooting

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your first story stated that the officers returned fire, which is exactly what this guy did. Thank you for admitting he did the right thing

Yet, they managed to aprehend the suspect without killing him, correct? Thank you for admitting you are a racist troll.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, they managed to aprehend the suspect without killing him, correct? Thank you for admitting you are a racist troll.

Because they missed, but thanks for admitting that shooting at a violent criminal that stole a weapon and fired it at you is ok.

When did I admit to being a democrat?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Because they missed, but thanks for admitting that shooting at a violent criminal that stole a weapon and fired it at you is ok.

When did I admit to being a democrat?

Originally posted by Surtur
His taser was stolen lol

Well, my view is that racists are morons. sorry Adam.

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm

Actually, that is taken into account by prosecutors. It's the "reasonable force" consideration. If the person is a known violent quantity, in the US, police will get away with violence against the perp more often.

I don't support that position, obviously. But it is something that is considered when reviewing the case.

Why be against it?

It only takes an instant to kill or be killed.

It's like the domesticated creature who ripped a woman's face off. Perhaps he did it in panic, and would never harm another soul, but who would take that risk?

Originally posted by cdtm
Why be against it?

It only takes an instant to kill or be killed.

It's like the domesticated creature who ripped a woman's face off. Perhaps he did it in panic, and would never harm another soul, but who would take that risk?

I don't understand.

Brooks wasn't a lethal threat to those 3 cops. Even with a taser.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand.

Brooks wasn't a lethal threat to those 3 cops. Even with a taser.

Neither are people who escape from prison.

He attacked an officer. Who knows what he'd do, if he's willing to go that far?

People run to get guns. People who attack police may do worse to civilians.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand.

Brooks wasn't a lethal threat to those 3 cops. Even with a taser.

Do we even know how many shots the taser could fire? Some can fire one, some up to 3.

I ask because if he hits a cop with the taser, can u GUARANTEE me that he would not have had enough time to go and grab the cops firearm? Can u GUARANTEE the other cop would have been able to prevent it?

Originally posted by Surtur
Do we even know how many shots the taser could fire? Some can fire one, some up to 3.

Are you saying that Brooks had additional barb charges in his pocket and he knew how to unload and reload the barbs because the taser has enough electrical energy to fire more than once?

YouTube video

Actually im just saying he's trash who brought about his own end.

The guy that brought felony murder charges against the officer says that tasers are deadly weapons.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Silent Master
The guy that brought felony murder charges against the officer says that tasers are deadly weapons.

YouTube video

Oh and he's seeking re-election and...well:

Atlanta DA who charged officer with felony murder is seeking reelection while under criminal investigation

Originally posted by Silent Master
The guy that brought felony murder charges against the officer says that tasers are deadly weapons.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
They can be, however that's not how law enforcement sell them as "non lethal" to the public.

but since u guys dont trust law enforcement...surely it must be a lie, right bro?

and u just admitted they can be deadly, so the cop was justified then? right?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Because they missed, but thanks for admitting that shooting at a violent criminal that stole a weapon and fired it at you is ok.

Police discharged weapons in both instances, but only killed the suspect in one. So the issue is not whether it is acceptalbe to discharge a weapon, but whether it is acceptable to kill the suspect. For some reason, police did not shoot to kill the white suspect, only the black one. Now get your racist noggin' joggin' and come up with your next justification for police sparing whites and killing blacks for the same offenses.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Well, my view is that racists are morons. sorry Adam.

Then stop cucking for them.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then stop cucking for them.

I've never cucked for you.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Police discharged weapons in both instances, but only killed the suspect in one. So the issue is not whether it is acceptalbe to discharge a weapon, but whether it is acceptable to kill the suspect. For some reason, police did not shoot to kill the white suspect, only the black one. Now get your racist noggin' joggin' and come up with your next justification for police sparing whites and killing blacks for the same offenses.

Are you attempting to argue that the police in your story missed on purpose?