Let's Start A Riot?!?!

No one has said he wasn't comitting crimes, he simply didn't commit any crimes that warranted death. Also no, he wasn't facing a life sentence, or even a long sentence..

Drunk driving. Resisting arrest. Firing a potentially lethal weapon at police. Assaulting two police officers. All of this assuming he had no record, which I am sure he does. That would be quite a lengthy sentence

honestly, after having to watch this so many times... i'm actually impressed by this cops marksmanship. its honestly is phenomenal. He not only hit a target who was running, while he himself was running, he landed two of three shots in under half of a second. having done intensive training myself, this is no easy feat. the mans draw speed is impressive.

He actually pulls this off faster than the time it takes for his taser to even hit the ground after dropping it. that cop was either insanely lucky to pull that off, or has trained an insane amount of time to be able to do that. im willing to put money on him having been an officer for a substantial degree of time - he worked for this PD for six years, but im willing to bet hed worked at another PD for substantially more, or had a military background.

All you a~holes buried my post about Eiryl's terribly rounded up stat post.....

That being said, and I think it's pretty obvious I'm not a liberal moron from my posts, but this is what is the truth about the fella getting shot in Atlanta:

Yes, he broke some laws. Although, none of those laws were egregious or heinous in any way.

Yes, it's best people just not be law breaking morons to avoid conflicts with the police altogether. Somehow I've made it 47 years on this planet and have lived with pot/coke dealers in college, and have only dealt with police during traffic stops. It IS possible.

Yes, the guy took the tazer and fired first prior to the officer pulling out his gun and firing at the criminal.

No, the officer did NOT make a good decision to gun down someone for simply being stronger than two cops, wriggling away, running away and firing a tazer at them. Yes, that's a possibility you run into when dealing with police if you take such actions, but, it probably shouldn't be.

The cop in this situation shouldn't have shot to kill a guy who only had a tazer. That's like hitting someone over the head with a ball bat because he came up and knuckle dug you in the shoulder.

And the woman who lit the Wendy's on fire should be stripped, tarred and feathered, in public, for being a generally stupid piece of trash.

UWU WHATS THIS

Georgia Law Specifically includes TAZERS AND STUN GUNS AS DEADLY WEAPONS FOR FELONIES?


Boom. This is why i say they wont stick ***to this cop.

i disagree with the analogy; you're thinking in the sense that the harm a taser can inflict is minimal comparatively to a gun, and is in some way a lesser action, than discharging a gun at a police officer. people have this misconception that tasers are safe. There is a reason they are classified as LESS LETHAL rather than Non Lethal/ Less than lethal. lets go over why they should be treated as a deadly weapon

1. Theres a common misconception that tasers can only be fired once. These can be fired twice, and if the darts connect, can be used to shock multiple times in 5 second pulses. each pulse renders most targets incapable of movement
2. tasing a person in the head or face, can be lethal in many cases. him firing this at the officer carried the risk of a fatal contact.
3. tasing a person in motion can cause them to fall uncontrollably - meaning this officer could have fallen face first into the car and broken his neck.
4. after tasing the officer, he could easily have deprived him of his weapon and ended his life.


The second that man fired the taser at the cop, he forfeited all protection under the law. that is a fact.

Shoot him with a rubber bullet (those things will drop you in a heartbeat, straight shot). Shoot him with the other tazer, he only took one. ANYTHING but fire a gun to kill a man who probably was just drunk and not in his right mind at the time, just trying to get away. Killing someone for what he did is excessive. Just my opinion.

Are rubber bullets effective in stopping power? I would wonder why they don't just carry real bullets, but primarily rely on rubber if they are effective. That would be a better way to stop any kind of accidental deaths.

Plus, amperes are what kill you, not volts. If there are some rare and random examples of tasers killing someone, that person had some other issues going on, or they fell back and cracked their head or something which can happen in any situation, just wrestling even, taser or no taser.

I get what you are saying, "the law states the use of tasers is a felony similar to a gun" but, I'm just saying it shouldn't be.

well theres a few problems there

1. The other tazer had deployed both shots during the altercation - one of which successfully DID strike the target (you can see it in the video), but the suspect was unfortunately one of those people who just dont go down from a single hit. he was able to continue running despite having been tased. the cellphone footage shows the officer deploy both rounds, and you can audibly hear them
2. even if he hadnt fired both rounds, you cant deploy a tazer while running; the darts are only effective and accurate up to 10 feet while standing still. running and firing one ahead of yourself is nearly impossible to hit effectively outside of five feet.
3. Officers do not carry rubber bullets, those are reserved for riots, and rubber bullets are ineffective at best.

Oh yeah. There are rubber "shot" which are in a shell-like canister to be used in shotguns to disperse crowds, you shoot them at the ground and they ricochet into their shins/legs and leave horrible bruising.

Then there are actual rubber bullets, that generally are not meant to be shot at a person with a straight shot, and they will stop you in your tracks. Why they are not used instead of live rounds, I'm not certain.

Well, if you think that:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-axon-taser-toll/reuters-finds-1005-deaths-in-u-s-involving-tasers-largest-accounting-to-date-idUSKCN1B21AH

they are actually a whole lot more lethal than you would think. its why the ACLU pushed to have them classified as "less lethal" rather than "non lethal"; because they are lethal, they just have a lower mortality rate than an actual gun.

And if he got away after what he did plus being drunk/resisting arrest in a drunken state, so what? Better than killing a man.

I just don't see the decision to end his life as the thing to do in this situation.

Well he could have harmed someone else, he was drunk and extremely violent. Not to say he deserved to die, but he should not have gotten away as that could be dangerous.

Right, ACLU and leftists are hypocrites. They push them as lethal when used against citizens, then say they aren't a big deal when used against cops. I get it, but man, I've been shot by a taser and a stun gun in college, long story, but weed was involved and some dares by housemates. It wasn't THAT bad. Worst part was pulling those little hooks out of your skin.

the issue arises because he was actively aiming the taser at the cop. if he was just fleeing, and ONLY had the taser? then yea, id back you 100000000000000000000000000% throw his *** in jail and lock him away for life.

thats not the case.

he shot at the cop.

He continued to aim at the cop.

The cop Shot him before he could fire the weapon again. you can see the bullets hit him, and his arm drop as he falls face first into the pavement after the cop shoots him.

What is the cop supposed to do there? Not chase him? Let himself get tased? No. The mans actions are indefensible.

True, but I don't know, just doesn't seem feasible to me some guy running from that situation is suddenly going to stop along the way and take it out on someone else. He probably was scared to death and would have kid in the bushes behind some house first chance he'd have got. Just saying, call some back up, get a helicopter, they typically nab those types within a few blocks. Shoot to kill just doesn't need to be the only option.

Agree to disagree!

like most people havent even watched the body cam footage-

the cops were literal saints to him - they woke him up, asked him to pull into a parking spot so they could talk to him. they were sweeter than sugar to the man like i couldnt believe it.

"hey, i get you say you only had one or two drinks, but i dont think you're sober enough to drive. i need you to put your arms behind your back, and i'm going to place you under arrest" was how the conversation went. He didnt slam the guy to the ground, he didnt do anything to him- all he did was lightly grab his arm and guide it behind him and put a cuff on him. The dude then Flips ***and starts whooping cop ***. the cops can be heard dont fight dont fight, please stop resisting. then saying DO NOT GRAB THE TASER. LET THE TASER GO. STOP GRABING THE TASER.
(paraphrasing because i dont care to transcribe it word for word for anyone too lazy to watch it).

they practically begged this man to comply end to end. i've never seen a more in line and orderly arrest up until the point the dude went full retard.

i mean we can disagree on wether or not he should have been shot; but the legal precedent for the cop shooting him is absolutely crystal clear; thats all i want to agree on honestly.

I saw it all, yeah they did everything right. He was perfectly complying then suddenly BOOM, decided to be tough guy (probably the booze or drugs talking) and made some terrible decisions that got him killed and by LAW< the officers it appears had every right to do so.

I'm saying that law should probably be strongly revisited. Maybe cops should carry more non-lethal ways to detain criminals.

I wonder how big those cops are or if they are female? Most countries have strict requirements for their cops, but apparently we let in whomever. Some guy 5'5 and pudgy probably isn't going to be doing much protecting or enforcing.

Yeah not sure if the police academy has height/weight restrictions...and can you imagine if they didn't allow females into the police academy? Holy ####. Feminists and every left leaning media outlet/organization would collectively crap their pants on that one. So yeah, it may simply be one of those things they are not allowed to discriminate based on X, Y, Z and it's one of the examples that the anti-discrimination fairies literally shot themselves in the foot on that one.

they have physical fitness standards for the most part, but they are not egregiously high. in all reality the physical fitness level required for an officer should be near professional athlete level if were expecting them to detain with raw power.

it also bears noting, that if someone is stronger than you, they're simply stronger than you. no matter how hard you push your body, the chance of someone being stronger than you is out there- so the whole 'well cops need to be stronger' argument kind of fails.

Yeah, I mean you can't do that today. Some of things need to have restrictions though. I am fairly certain theres a rule that two females can't patrol alone, they have to be accompanied by a male but I could be wrong. No restrictions on weight/height seem pretty silly though, some people just can't be cops. Many countries have these restrictions in place.

Yeah someone can be stronger than you but it just lessens the opportunity for that to arise when you have two fit police officers that can control the situation better than say two unfit police officers.

They should all adopt the State Highway Patrol requirements. You won't see one of those guys/ladies being unfit or fat/slobby.

Plus if I were a cop and concerned with my safety, I'd take it upon myself to be fit. When I see those tubby ones that have that...Batman utility belt just, digging into their tub rolled underbelly, man that ***has to hurt after an 8 hour shift.

Just a few examples of the aftermath of rubber bullets. Terribly painful but, better than being dead.

So, zoming into the picture it looks like the object marked tazer is about a body length from the suspect. His body length and ignoring any possible visual angle shortening.