MEDIA EXPOSED ONCE AGAIN. ATLANTA SHOOTING

When you say "hunting" it is nearly automatic that the intent is to kill an animal. You compared the police carrying a gun to hunting.

It is perfectly legal to carry a gun in some circumstances. That, by itself, shows no intent to kill.

 

It doesn't matter how he got there. He was drunk and the motor vehicle laws define him as the driver. A "driver" is defined as being a person in physical control* of a motor vehicle.

*Physical control means 'to be in charge of at the time'. It has nothing to do with actually operating the controls.

 

Yeah, they all neglected investing in infrastructure repairs in favor of spending their tax money on bicycle paths and solar rebates to wealthy homeowners to become "Green". If they let the looters rob and burn downtown, then they'll get Uncle Sam, the American taxpayers, to foot the bill on rebuilding everything all shiny and new....and at no cost to their bankrupt city or state. That's how "free money" Dems work; cause the decay then charge the federal government for the "emergency".

 

Don't confuse him with facts.

 

Let him go after being incapacitated by the tazer and then killed?

 

Right. So you are in agreement then that black people can't be expected to take responsibility for their own actions and we need to treat them differently? Like we need a separate and unequal standard when dealing with them because they can't be expected to follow the same rules as everyone else.

 

That's not even CLOSE to anything that was said

Why would you make such a claim?

 

I presented an example where intent is clear.

You claimed to know the officers' intent.

AND

"That, by itself, shows no intent to kill." True enough...
Until someone is killed.
Then bringing the gun is sufficient to demonstrate intent.

 

murdering black people? 7,000 blacks murder each other a year, only 10 unarmed blacks were killed last year by cops. Why are you not marching down the streets demanding we do something about those 7,000 black murders? You all are so disingenuous and fraudulent... this is not about black lives, it’s about not wanting to be policed and justifying criminal behavior because ‘they don’t know better, they commit crime to survive’. This really what all of this is about.

 

"With all the tools the police could have at their disposal why do you suppose the gun is ALWAYS the first option?"

It's not. It wasn't the first option in this case. The criminal's actions made it the only option.

 

So did you refuse to do as he said, wrestle him to the ground, punch him in the face, steal his tazer, run like hell, then turn and point the taser at him while fleeing?

I'm guessing not. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here to tell your story, which ended peacefully because you complied with everything the officer asked of you.

 

You example was unting. The intent is to kill.

The intent of the officer when he put on that gun was not to kill. He had probably put on that gun thousands of times and killed no one. It was only when his life was threatened that he killed.

Intent to do what?

 

Dude! He was neither fleeing, nor was he unarmed.

Please learn the facts.

 

Never said and any implication to the contrary is a lie.

Given the premise starts with a lie there is no need to respond what follows.

 

That post was pretty far out there. I can't imagine what could have led to it.

 

He was BOTH. Look at the video

And a Taser is not a deadly weapon...ask the Georgia police

 

Ah the ever racist "Black on Black" rationalization that justifies the murder of Black citizens because the police don't kill as many.

I realize this might not slip easily into your cranium but...

Black People Don't Kill Black People Because They Are Black

And in case you're wondering

White People Don't Kill White People Because They're White

I'll leave you to ponder this revelation.
Take all the time you need.

 

I was not arrested...because the black cop de-escalated the situation and dealt with it in a non-violent manner.

Are you claiming it is justifiable to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect (whose information you HAVE) in the back?

 

Then why put it on?

illuminate us oh great reader of minds!

 

Speculation. Are you sitting in the comfort of your easy chair?

 

You were not arrested because you cooperated with the officer. You did not get into a wresting match on the ground, hit him in the face, steal his tazer, run, then turn and point the tazer at him.

Did you?

 

Umm... actually, that would be you.

 

Not according to the Georgia police

 

And all that did not occur because that officer dealt with the situation by resolving it and not escalating it

 

You seem to have a problem with facts and can only run with the story as you imagined it to be.

None the less he was armed and was not shot in the back.