Shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta

Physically assaulting two law enforcement officers, however, does.

In the united states, one does not actually have to prove their life was in danger at the time of assault in order to justify deadly force. A simple unprovoked sucker punch is all that is needed to justify the instigator being killed in response.

 

How many of those 11 were lies?

 

Yet the gestapo use them freely on non violent people all year long. But I get that you put such high value of the gestapo feefees that you're ok with them shooting a guy, in the back, that didn't pose a threat.

 

Can you name the judge that passed that sentence?
Hard to give a suckerpunch to someone while fleeing and being shot in the back.

 

None

 

None.

If you want lies, watch Trump on any day that ends in y..

 

And then a pink unicorn with wings will carry him off to Disneyland.

Ever hear of Garner?

 

Well, for one, I heard the audio while in my truck where the officer pleads" Mr. Brooks, keep breathing" He says it several times as he performs CPR. The lying prosecutor who is trying to save his black a$%, said he deferred medical attention.
Just like you Defer to" President" Trump everytime you lose. Doesn't that get you?
Can you say it? "President Trump"

 

Are you calling the Democrat leadership in these liberal cities Nazi's, and the Police their Gestapo? Where are you from anyway?

 

See you in court, counselor.

 

Why do you even want to go to court? You're just going to riot anyway when the cop is freed and rewarded millions for being wrongfully fired.

 

Hey! shooting another because they're different for no reason is wrong and I stand with it.

 

Brosnan just spoke publicly for the first time since being charged. His attorney claims the allegations by the D.A. are exaggerated and misleading, and says Brosnan was actually unaware Brooks was shot initially and was trying to figure out what happened.

Once he did, the lawyer says Brosnan went to get a first aid kit to help Brooks, and by that point, other officers had arrived. Brosnan added that Brooks was friendly and respectful, and he just wanted to try to help him out ... before the incident turned violent.

12:32 PM PT -- Rolfe has now also been booked and charged with felony murder. He also faces charges of aggravated assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, criminal damage to property in the first degree and violation of oath by public officer charges.

10:18 AM PT -- Brosnan has already been released from jail ... he was just spotted leaving the facility with his attorney.

 

Yeah Brooks shot a taser at Rolfe because he is bald. I think that is just wrong!

 

Justice.

 

your preconceived notion of justice based on the lies of a prosecutor that is facing a tough election who said two weeks earlier a taser is a deadly force. Now he changes to help his chances..

 

I don't think we'll really know why Brooks took the taser just to defend himself or what.

 

So let me get this straight. A bad cop unjustly shoots someone so we burn down our cities.
Did you read about the black woman who shoved an old white man off a bus and killed him
simply because he told her to be nice to other people?
And in yesterday's news - a black man who slammed a 93 year old lady into a fire hydrant?
Both were known to police, the guy's had 100 offences. WHO LET HIM WALK THE STREETS?
Must be that "systemic racism" at work?
Should enraged whites burn down black suburbs? Sure, blacks do it.
Should whites rebuild burned out businesses in black areas? No.

 

Shooting someone in the back is frowned on in some places.

Btw, your preconceived notion of justice is based on lies..

 

Which does not change the legal classification of such devices.

Once an individual demonstrates that they pose a threat to others, they do not cease being considered a threat until they have either been physically apprehended or otherwise neutralized. That is how the law of the united states works. The individual in question physically assaulted two law enforcement officers, meaning he could have easily done the same or worse to anyone else he came across, meaning a potential murderer could be making an effort to escape. Should law enforcement allow an individual who has proven themselves to be dangerous to others just freely leave of their own volition, when they have no way of determining whether or not said individual will assault others in an unprovoked manner?

 

It is a basis of self defense laws in the united states. As a citizen of the united states, you have absolutely no excuse for being ignorant of such facts.

And if the individual in question had successfully escaped and gone on to physically assault someone else, what then? What would the answer be under those circumstances?

 

Yet another convicted felon, who was committing another felony offense while out on parole for committing the same offense previously. Who also decided to violently resist a lawful arrest.

 

He was trying to escape a return to prison for the parole he violated. He was a desperate child beater.

 

This wasn't an old West showdown. When cowards shoot and run, they are likely to be hit in the back. So you imply a felon should be safe from return fire by exposing his back?

 

An officer is not allowed to shoot a tazer, much less a gun, unless there is an imminent threat.

There was no imminent threat.

I am implying that if we have law, perhaps we should use it.

Instead of shooting first and asking questions later...