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

I hear they have free TV and hair extensions in prison. Don't resist arrest, and you might get yours!

 

No police involved shooting, justified or unjustified, that did not start without the suspect making bad decisions. Yet, the agitators want us to ignore those bad decisions. It is the only way they can justify their knee jerking reactions.

 

The problem with this shooting is the Taser is a either a one or a two shot device depending upon model. One shot had been fired and missed. If it was one of the single shot models, then the suspect was unarmed at that point. Information on the model of Taser used in this incident is therefore needed to know if the suspect was still in control of a weapon at the time the officer fired.

 

In any event: A Taser is NOT a Deadly Weapon...

Thus: Deadly Force (by the Cop) Was NOT Justified...

Period...

 

Why do you say it was murder?

 

I’m more curious about Trumps involvement. Is he on tape?

 

What would you call it?

An "Accidental Killing"?

It looked like MURDER to me...

You say Toe-Mah-Toe, I say Toe-May-Toe...

 

I dunno. I agree his decision might not have been the best but under the circumstances I could see a reasonable person making the decision.

Like when Sully decided to land his plane in the Hudson bay when he really could have landed it in a nearby airport if he had perfect knowledge at the time.

 

I think it's murder when even a reasonable officer could not have pulled the trigger under the circumstances. Here it might have been the wrong decision to pull the trigger but I think a reasonable officer could have done the same in those circumstances.

 

But until you get rid of the high poverty and unemployment rates which are DOUBLE for blacks - leading to incarceration rates SEVEN times that of whites - it IS a matter of race.

 

I suspect it is true the shooting was not justified. But not because a Taser isn't a deadly weapon. Rather because there were two officers there and at most only one shot remaining in the Taser. Had it been one officer it would be a different story. For if an officer is disabled by a Taser his own gun may then be taken with ease, and used against him self or others.

Aside from shooting out barbs at the end of wires, a Taser has another function. The Taser can be used as a direct contact stun gun after the barb cartridge has been used and removed. In a one on one fight between an officer and an attacker, this too becomes a threat to the officer's life. If there are two officers though, that threat is greatly reduced.

This does look like an unjustified killing to me from what is currently known. Additional information could come out to change that view.

 

Well, let's see - he was passed out in the drive-thru lane at Wendy's. He was apparently absolutely hammered. He resisted arrest, and having nearly been killed by a drunk myself I have little tolerance for drunk drivers. The perp escalated the conflict. He tried tasering an officer. I'm gonna go with justified here. Also, I don't get why the chief resigned. But I mostly agree with you on this one.

Seriously, is he one of the few people who hasn't seen the Chris Rock video "How to Not Get Your @$$ Kicked by the Police"?

It happened in Atlanta, right? That city voted for Hilla.

Think about it then don't get back to me.

 

And the nuts burnt the Wendy's to the ground.

 

Your post highlights that the training and policies should be reviewed. It is possible to look at the final moments and say that a shooting was justified, but was it necessary? Could training and policies help prevent situations getting to the point that shooting was the only option?

I dont have the answers but deaths by police or in police custody are WAY higher than in other countries. By raw numbers, by rate of death per 100k arrests and even more do by rate of death per million of population.

That all suggests that other countries are doing things differently. Maybe America could learn from them.

 

OR maybe just maybe our aholes are worse then their aholes.

 

Or both can be true, but I wish a mod could swoop in and edit the title to its true story: Criminal dies after instigating a violent conflict with police.

 

Are you serious?

Illegals come here dead broke and it’s illegal to hire them, yet we’re told by the left they lower our crime rate.

So for a moment stop with the excuses, scratch your beard and give us an honest response.

 

I mean, it's literally an insurrection. And we, the nation should rightly demand for our local and state governments to respond. They have an obligation to respond to this insurrectionist threat against the country. The Framer's would've been responded(Shay's rebellion.)

 

I realize very few of you will agree with me here or be able to see it, but this tragedy would not have happened if it was not for laws against driving under the influence.

Any time there is a law, it requires enforcement of the law, and therein lies the potential for physical altercations and, in some cases, potential tragedy.

These situations have the potential to escalate very quick.

That being said, it's also an illustration why drugs are a bad thing, because this man was obviously out of his mind if he grabbed a police taser and was threatening them with it.

 

That’s possible. But the rate of in-custody deaths is so much higher (I think it’s twenty times higher, per capita, compared to UK) that it deserves some investigation. And even if Americans are more violent than other developed countries, isn’t that also worth investigating?

Wouldn’t it be good to reduce the number of deaths in police custody if possible?

 

DUI's, on paper would sound like not quite the menace to society, except when it is when a drunk driver is unable to stop or unable to see a person that's crossing the road. There's been literally thousands of deaths(many of whom children) at the wrong side of a drunken car.

So that's why the law is there, and why it's generally a good law. I think that maybe we could ticket a DUI offender and have it treated like a traffic violation, but meh.

 

I thought the 2A people tell us that one of the main reasons for 2A is to be able to support an insurrection against un unjust or oppressive government? If enough people feel the government is unjust or oppressive, wouldn’t the framers support armed revolt? It’s what they did.

 

100% legit.

If the cop gets hit with the taser the cop is as good as dead because he'll have his gun taken away.

But don't let common sense get in the way of your agenda.

 

If he was the only one there, yeah. If there were other cops there as well, they could have tased the hell out of the guy first.

 

I realize that, but this was a man who had fallen asleep in his car in the drive-through.

I think they should (in a perfect world) have helped him on his way, help get the car out of the drive-through to the parking lot, and tried to call one of his family members to come pick him up.

Because we are basically talking about being under the influence in a car that is standing still in a drive-through line.
I'd like to know whether the engine was even running also.

Now, don't mistake what I'm saying, I'm not blaming the police officers. I am just saying that, in some way, this was a result of the law.
The man was getting belligerent because he knew the officers were going to haul him way.

Yet very few here who blame the officers will blame the laws.