George Floyd Police killing and protests

[David]

Even if the taser were still effective, it's not lethal force. I don't know if this is a radical view, but I don't think police should be shooting to kill if nobody's life is actually at risk.

[Pies4shaw]

The taser is a sideshow. Why was he shot in the back, twice, running away?

[Wokko]

The taser is a sideshow. Why was he shot in the back, twice, running away?

Because he turned as he was running and fired a taser behind him. It was a justified shooting and the police should get off.

[Morrigu]

Even if the taser were still effective, it's not lethal force. I don't know if this is a radical view, but I don't think police should be shooting to kill if nobody's life is actually at risk.

And yet from the same Prosecutor

“ The charges by Howard, who is under investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation himself and is embroiled in a contentious primary election, are a substantial shift from last week’s press conference during which Howard said that a taser is a deadly weapon under Georgia law. The clip of that video is below.”
https://allongeorgia.com/georgia-state- ... ooks-case/[/b]

[Pies4shaw]

The taser is a sideshow. Why was he shot in the back, twice, running away?

Because he turned as he was running and fired a taser behind him. It was a justified shooting and the police should get off.

Is it too much to ask that you avoid fantasy? He got shot twice in the back.

[Wokko]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1271997412668633088

Turns towards them pointing a weapon. Gets shot.

[Wokko]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1271886948047740929

The lead up. These cops would've been hopped up on adrenaline and responding in a primitive fight or flight manner. Once he pointed that taser he was done.

[stui magpie]

A court will decide whether or not the cop committed homicide or some other degree of killing people.

The only undisputed relevant facts are, a man is dead and a policeman shot him.

[think positive]

Even if the taser were still effective, it's not lethal force. I don't know if this is a radical view, but I don't think police should be shooting to kill if nobody's life is actually at risk.

he died in hospital of his injuries, maybe not a kill shot. maybe they were just trying to take him down. not easy to aim at a running figure, so they are taught to aim for the body.

I can tell you now if someone is pointing a weapon at me, yes even a taser, and ive got a gun, im shooting at them. I find it incredulous you expect these 2 cops who could not hold this guy between them, can make that split decision. who knows what he was going to do next? cars everywhere, its a busy area.

he should not have resisted arrest, he should not have grabbed the taser, he should not have run, did he deserve to die? no, but that doesn't mean the cops were in the wrong. He, no one else involved, could have stopped this in an instance. he chose not too.

you make light of a taser"

https://www.foxnews.com/story/grrr-what ... -feel-good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spkzY8QhHw0

[Tannin]

Was the victim a scumbag? Sure. What has that got to do with this murder case? Absolutely nothing.

Sure, absolutely, get rid of the guns. Meanwhile, Pies4shaw has asked the one really important question.

"Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?"

How does an "unarmed" man shoot a taser?

1: The taser had already been expended, and the officer knew that as it was his own taser.
2: A taser - a device explicitly designed to do no lasting harm - is is no way, shape, or form a deadly weapon to be considered in the same breath as a gun - a weapon expressly designed to kill.

The taser: discharged. Empty. Essentially harmless even when loaded. Utterly harmless when empty.

The gun: loaded. Designed to kill, ready to kill ... and it did kill.

There may be - "may" I said, not "is" - a valid defence along the lines some posters have outlined above. That is entirely a matter for the jury to decide in the light of all the evidence when it is presented to them in a court of law. It is absolutely not, repeat not, a reason not to charge a man with murder after he shot an unarmed man twice in the back.

[think positive]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1271886948047740929

The lead up. These cops would've been hopped up on adrenaline and responding in a primitive fight or flight manner. Once he pointed that taser he was done.

there is just no way after this they can just let him go. if they did word would spread and crims know if you fight back they let you go.

this is not a guy laying cuffed in the gutter, helpless.

[Wokko]

Even if the taser were still effective, it's not lethal force. I don't know if this is a radical view, but I don't think police should be shooting to kill if nobody's life is actually at risk.

A taser is classified as "less lethal" not non lethal. Plenty of cases of people dying when hit with one.

[Wokko]

Was the victim a scumbag? Sure. What has that got to do with this murder case? Absolutely nothing.

Sure, absolutely, get rid of the guns. Meanwhile, Pies4shaw has asked the one really important question.

"Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?"

How does an "unarmed" man shoot a taser?

1: The taser had already been expended, and the officer knew that as it was his own taser.
2: A taser - a device explicitly designed to do no lasting harm - is is no way, shape, or form a deadly weapon to be considered in the same breath as a gun - a weapon expressly designed to kill.

The taser: discharged. Empty. Essentially harmless even when loaded. Utterly harmless when empty.

The gun: loaded. Designed to kill, ready to kill ... and it did kill.

There may be - "may" I said, not "is" - a valid defence along the lines some posters have outlined above. That is entirely a matter for the jury to decide in the light of all the evidence when it is presented to them in a court of law. It is absolutely not, repeat not, a reason not to charge a man with murder after he shot an unarmed man twice in the back.

Another hero who doesn't understand split second decisions made under duress. A taser CAN kill, they shot after being fired on and it was a split second decision, probably more a reaction than decision. A taser is absolutely a lethal weapon, just less lethal than a firearm.

Justified shooting.

[think positive]

self defence.

tannin if someone hands you a gun and says the bullets are all spent, would you aim it at your own head?

no I wouldn't trust that either

[Wokko]

Lol, given they are usually protesting against the state and the police are apart of that, protestors will always complain about the police no matter what they do.

99.9% of people who have run ins with the police bring it in themselves then cry when the police fight back. Who wants to go to work every day to protect people only to be abused and spat on and yet if you dare retaliate, you get painted as the bad guy!

I think Chris Rock had a good bit on this:

https://youtu.be/1h5sRgW6sQY

Here's a better one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8