Man dies after being shot by Atlanta police at Wendy’s drive-thru

LOL!!!

You don't make sure he is no longer a threat by walking away.

 

He was unarmed when he was shot in the back.

 

No he wasn't, the officer's actions here were 100% understandable whilst the suspect's were insanity. How can you not have empathy with these cops?

 

He was a fleeing felon.

 

Didn't see the video did ya? In it, you can see him running and then turning back to fire the taser at the cop and then gets shot.

 

Why is the fact the individual in question committed felony assault on two law enforcement officers, ultimately being ignored on the part of yourself? Explain such. At least one of the law enforcement officers in question was knocked to the ground and given a concussion, which can and has proven to be just as fatal as a bullet in other situations. Explain why such a move should not be considered attempted deadly force.

 

Then he was armed, he didn't drop the TASER until after eh shot at the officer and just before he was shot, at that point he already threatened the officer provoking the shooting, dropping the TASER, was too too late.

 

Actually it appears he fired the TASER at the officer and missed and then was shot while dropping it, none the less it's a good shooting, he fired a weapon that can be deadly at a law enforcement officer, the proper response to that is shoot him so he cannot harm anyone else.

 

Or just wear the tshirt that describes them best, Serve, protect and break a Nword's neck.

 

As long as they are serving and protecting I do not care what color the criminal is.

 

True, but to those who hate law enforcement color it's the fuel they need to spread their bigotry far and wide, it's cow manures for the weeds of hatred.

 

Sure you don't.

 

Smear

 

I am not racist, why should I care?

 

If you say so.

 

Well, I do say so. There is zero proof of racism in these cases. The only thing they have in common is they take place during an election year.

 

So you believe Brooks had a better chance at taking down both cops with one taser when both cops had guns? The two wires on a taser are 35 feet in length meaning the distance between Rolfe and Brooks was roughly 35 feet. Say Brooks got real lucky and hit Rolfe. How long do you think it would have taken Brooks, who was running away at a fast pace, could have quickly stopped his forward motion and ran back to Rolfe and take his gun away and fire at the second cop who was also chasing Brooks before the second cop could draw his gun if he didn't already have it out? Now Flash could have pulled that off easily but I doubt Brooks is as fast as Flash. I hope you don't gamble. The odds are clearly in the cops favor, not Brooks. If I were a betting man, which I'm not, I would place my bet on the second cop being able to draw his gun and shoot Brooks before Brooks even got close to Rolfe. Let's also look at the probability of Brooks actually hitting Rolfe from a distance of 35 feet while running away and taking a wild shot over his shoulder?

 

This is all "Monday morning quarterbacking".

It's pretty easy to sit in one's easy chair, pondering the ideal outcome, then construct a chain of actions which might lead to that result.

An easy chair doesn't accurately simulate the conditions on the ground, however. There are no simulated aftereffects of having gone through an intense struggle; being tossed around like rag doll. No simulated chase eith the thug, once again, becoming a threat.

If it's good for you, it should be good for me:

The thug simply could have not passed out drunk in the drive-through.
He could have not assaulted the officers.
He could have not turned and become a threat, again.

This is ridiculous. There is no reason for this to be a story. It should have been on page six of the local paper.

 

And who claims all cops are bad?

 

Every single individual who has supported the notion of defunding law enforcement.

 

I have great respect for most of our police, as they are doing an important job that includes personal risk.

However it is out of control today. There needs to be serious change.

The vids prove he was unarmed when he was shot. You can watch him thowing the taser, which was the only weapon he had.

I have NO idea why that policeman thought (or was trained) that it was acceptable to shoot unarmed persons in the back. I suspect training does have something to do with it, as this notion that killing people is OK has shown up on a regular basis.

So, the policeman who murdered this guy does belong in jail, but like in Minneapolis, here in Seattle, and other places, the way policing is done needs to change. And, I don't see how that can be done without major changes in staffing. I do not believe you can just teach that there are some new rules to follow and expect ANY actual change.


Look at what the Senate wanted to pass in the way of reform!!

 

The vids I've seen dont show him actually being shot. But, they do show him firing the taser into the air over his shoulder and then throwing it away.

 

He was trying to get away. That's a crime, but it's not a reason to kill the guy.

He wasn't attempting to harm the officers. He was trying to get away. He posed no risk to any civilian There was no chance that he was going to escape arrest.

I know it's quicker and easier to just kill the guy, but that is NOT an excuse.

 

If does not make any difference if the individual in question was unarmed at the exact moment he was shot by law enforcement, he was armed up until that precise moment in time, and only became armed after having assaulted two law enforcement officers without justification.

When one conducts themselves in a manner no different than a rabid, feral animal, they will be treated as if they are a rabid, feral animal. That means they will be met with deadly force, and that deadly force will be justified by their chosen actions.

If such is considered unacceptable on the part of yourself, then come out and admit such openly. State for everyone present to see, that it is believed law enforcement should be legally barred from ever using deadly force on a suspect who has already proven the danger they pose to others.

 

Once again, ignoring the fact the individual in question was not killed on the basis that he was fleeing. He was killed on the basis that he physically assaulted two law enforcement officers, was armed, and posed a confirmed risk to the well being of anyone who got in his way. Why is that so difficult to understand? Why do you continually refuse to acknowledge the felony assault that occurred?