- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Atlanta Cops shoot man, I was wrong, it was justified
Posted on 6/14/20 at 12:56 pm to Muleriderhog
Posted on 6/14/20 at 12:56 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:frick you loser
This new video further validates my point but the majority of this board will continue to blindly support the cops
0
Posted on 6/14/20 at 12:56 pm to SidewalkTiger
It seems like throughout history as long as there's been organized policing that "excessive force" has been a topic of debate and controversy. Perhaps it's no longer a legitimate topic of discussion, but I can't imagine that being the case.
Maybe there's an argument to be made that there isn't even valid basis to initiate a discussion re: excessive force in this particular matter, but IMO there is, even if only based on question of whether the taser was/is legitimately considered a deadly weapon enough to justify deadly force. That seems like a valid convo to me. Just the issue of "excessive use of force or not," leaving out personally defending either party....just scrutiny of the act itself.
Maybe there's an argument to be made that there isn't even valid basis to initiate a discussion re: excessive force in this particular matter, but IMO there is, even if only based on question of whether the taser was/is legitimately considered a deadly weapon enough to justify deadly force. That seems like a valid convo to me. Just the issue of "excessive use of force or not," leaving out personally defending either party....just scrutiny of the act itself.
Posted on 6/14/20 at 12:58 pm to PsychTiger
quote:he shouldn't have been driving drunk to begin with..
He should have complied.
This post was edited on 6/14/20 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 6/14/20 at 12:59 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:i explained it clearly. how in the world did you not understand. do you not know english?
I can’t believe you’re defending a cop who shot a man in the back as he was running away
he tried to tase a cop and ran with the weapon. if the cops let him walk and he hurt someone else, that would be on the cops. if he's willing to hurt/kill a cop, what else is he capable of? get your head out of your arse
my word you are pathetic
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:00 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:yeah, their decision was neither hasty nor political. are you mentally challenged?
Not at all, just nice seeing a PD hold a cop accountable for once
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:01 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:well this totally makes sense
But people keep on coming and calling me stupid so I’m just kinda rolling with it
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:01 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:
This new video further validates my point but the majority of this board will continue to blindly support the cops.
Only if you’re a moron, which you clearly are.
The new video further proves why the police had justifiable cause to shoot the dindu.
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:03 pm to arktiger28
The appropriate title of this thread should be "Atlanta Cops Shoot back at man who wrestled with cops, stole cops taser and then turned and fired taser at cops"
That or
"Another Case of Stupid games, Stupid Prizes"
That or
"Another Case of Stupid games, Stupid Prizes"
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:03 pm to davyjones
quote:
even if only based on question of whether the taser was/is legitimately considered a deadly weapon enough to justify deadly force.
Definitely.
Next question?
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:05 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:
But people keep on coming and calling me stupid so I’m just kinda rolling with it.
You dont say...
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:06 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:
But people keep on coming and calling me stupid so I’m just kinda rolling with it.
Yet, no sooner had the smoke dissipated from the gun and you couldn’t wait to jump on here making this thread and pronouncing your initial verdict. There’s a thing called waiting for facts. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept.
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:10 pm to davyjones
ANY WEAPON brandished towards a cop is enough to justify deadly force being used by them. There is a loaded firearm in every confrontation they're involved in: theirs. If they get incapacitated in any way, someone can take their gun and kill them and others with it.
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:16 pm to SidewalkTiger
One word discussions aren't very fun. 
I think the discussion can go much further than what's been exhibited here. The most popular justification is that "Perp could have hit the mark with the cop, and thereafter taken his service weapon and caused a world of hurt." But doesn't there need to be more to the convo than that? To that popular take there are some valid rebuttals. For instance, the pursuing officer had backup right there with him. How is it not reasonable to assert that the backup would have taken deadly force action if the perp would have successfully struck pursuing officer and turned back to try to take his sidearm? Pursuing officer surely knew his backup was right there. Additionally, this wasn't a case of close quarters hand to hand combat....perp was running away, had all of his momentum moving away from pursuing officer. Thus even more time and effort that it would have taken the perp to stop himself, turn around, and go back to the tasered pursuing officer....more time and effort that would provide backup ample opportunity to take perp out.
IMO there's just a decent bit more to consider here.
I think the discussion can go much further than what's been exhibited here. The most popular justification is that "Perp could have hit the mark with the cop, and thereafter taken his service weapon and caused a world of hurt." But doesn't there need to be more to the convo than that? To that popular take there are some valid rebuttals. For instance, the pursuing officer had backup right there with him. How is it not reasonable to assert that the backup would have taken deadly force action if the perp would have successfully struck pursuing officer and turned back to try to take his sidearm? Pursuing officer surely knew his backup was right there. Additionally, this wasn't a case of close quarters hand to hand combat....perp was running away, had all of his momentum moving away from pursuing officer. Thus even more time and effort that it would have taken the perp to stop himself, turn around, and go back to the tasered pursuing officer....more time and effort that would provide backup ample opportunity to take perp out.
IMO there's just a decent bit more to consider here.
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:17 pm to Muleriderhog
Dude you should stop posting for a long time
This post was edited on 6/14/20 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:21 pm to VictoryHill
It might be eventually concluded that a taser is considered deadly weapon enough to warrant use of deadly force, but I don't believe that's a foregone conclusion. In fact I'm sure this exact question will be the subject of a great deal of conversation in the coming days, weeks and months. In fact that needs to be one of the overarching policy conversations between the public and law enforcement, not to constrain law enforcement at all, but simply to clarify once and for all what the public needs to expect when it comes to this. It needs to be made known in no uncertain terms that a taser directed at a police officer is either always a deadly threat, or not. Then folks have no excuse if they get popped.
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:31 pm to davyjones
quote:
but simply to clarify once and for all what the public needs to expect when it comes to this. It needs to be made known in no uncertain terms that a taser directed at a police officer is either always a deadly threat, or not. Then folks have no excuse if they get popped.
You’re under the impression that people want to solve this issue?
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:33 pm to Muleriderhog
If you comply, you won’t die. Why don’t people understand this? Stop fighting with cops
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:34 pm to davyjones
quote:
IMO there's just a decent bit more to consider here.
I would conditionally agree with this.
I don’t think a citizen gets treated like a police officer does here. If a citizen is fighting another citizen and one citizen raises a let’s hypothetically say an indeterminate weapon at the other citizen and the citizen with the weapon raised towards them responds with shooting the threat, I think the citizen being threatened has a reasonable likelihood of not being charged with homicide. Especially if the person who first raised the weapon initiated the whole conflict.
This post was edited on 6/14/20 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:35 pm to Jumbo_Gumbo
quote:
If you comply, you won’t die.
That’s largely true.
It is completely true to say we could cut fatal police shootings by 75% by just not shooting at cops.
Posted on 6/14/20 at 1:38 pm to davyjones
quote:
IMO there's just a decent bit more to consider here.
The problem here is that the cop had to consider all of this in 3 seconds.
Page 24 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News