It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -

[Asclepias]

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

By that operational definition George Floyd was weak too. Thanks.

They had 4 cops on him so no.

I mean when he pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, had his crew rob her and then pistol whip her. Pretty cowardly by my definition but not by yours it seems.

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Who’s sitting back having a margarita tonight?

Not the cop that got fired. Why do you ask?

He probably has a million dollar pension lol

That will go to the guys family after its all said and done. That will change the families trajectory. Tell him thanks for the donation.

May change the trajectory not “will” you don’t know that. You don’t have ESP.

It will change the trajectory. Wealth is the great equalizer. I know that for a fact.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Shooting him in the back is going to result in the SOB being charged probably around Wed.

Could be. Back to my client that got stunned 14 times, they never shot him. We've got a huge drug problem around here and nary a soul has been killed by a cop, even though they confront raging drunks and guys jacked on any number of drugs, some of them armed, all of them dangerous My client lived to lie in an ER bed for over a week waiting for an opening at the psych hospital. People may laugh at us rubes, but maybe our cops need to teach city cops how to handle folks who are out of line.

How about better parenting so that people don’t get out of line?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

By that operational definition George Floyd was weak too. Thanks.

They had 4 cops on him so no.

I mean when he pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, had his crew rob her and then pistol whip her. Pretty cowardly by my definition but not by yours it seems.

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Who’s sitting back having a margarita tonight?

Not the cop that got fired. Why do you ask?

He probably has a million dollar pension lol

That will go to the guys family after its all said and done. That will change the families trajectory. Tell him thanks for the donation.

May change the trajectory not “will” you don’t know that. You don’t have ESP.

It will change the trajectory. Wealth is the great equalizer. I know that for a fact.

For some not for all. So the answer is “may”. You would not know a fact if it hit you on your racist ass.

 

[Asclepias]

The bottom line is to stop being a racist.

Racism is indemic with humans. Next idea.

Nope. Its on endemic with the pale primate known as the european.

Sorry, but you are not a virgin.

All opinions on this issue are suspect. What of the Arabs toward Israel?

All political marketing.

What of it? Didnt europe plop white people down in Israel and support them with their take over of the area?

There it is. The antisemitism showing through. Most were from the Middle East but why bother with facts when you can just scream “racism” and “white privilege” like a zombie.

" Most were from the Middle East "

Bullshit. There are no white people from that region of the world.

Most people who settled in Israel initially were dark and from the Middle East. Your ignorance is noted. You lost another debate. Your hatred of Jews is funny given that you cry racism like a bitch nonstop here. Hypocrisy 101.

Bullshit. The only dark people that are actually from that area arent white.

Facts don’t care about your feelings. You lost another debate. Ask any learned person. Most Jews in Israel in 1947 were from surrounding Middle East countries. Exodus pushed Europeans there as well. UK owned land given back to them. Jews banded together vs killing one another at record rates. No Bloods and Crips in the Jewish community.

You just admitted european were pushed there. You lost again. Arent you like 0-197 now? We'll just round it off and say 0-200.

As well not just. I am undefeated against you and everyone else here. But don’t deflect. Jews don’t kill one another at record rates. Maybe you should try doing that instead of crying racism like a bitch. 201-0. You lose again, loser.

You have never won against anyone let alone me. I'm not deflecting. You claimed that the white Isrealies were native and then you admitted that they werent. Thanks for losing without a struggle this time.

 

[Asclepias]

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

By that operational definition George Floyd was weak too. Thanks.

They had 4 cops on him so no.

I mean when he pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, had his crew rob her and then pistol whip her. Pretty cowardly by my definition but not by yours it seems.

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Who’s sitting back having a margarita tonight?

Not the cop that got fired. Why do you ask?

He probably has a million dollar pension lol

That will go to the guys family after its all said and done. That will change the families trajectory. Tell him thanks for the donation.

May change the trajectory not “will” you don’t know that. You don’t have ESP.

It will change the trajectory. Wealth is the great equalizer. I know that for a fact.

For some not for all. So the answer is “may”. You would not know a fact if it hit you on your racist ass.

The answer is will. Not much you can do to change that fact.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The bottom line is to stop being a racist.

Racism is indemic with humans. Next idea.

Nope. Its on endemic with the pale primate known as the european.

Sorry, but you are not a virgin.

All opinions on this issue are suspect. What of the Arabs toward Israel?

All political marketing.

What of it? Didnt europe plop white people down in Israel and support them with their take over of the area?

There it is. The antisemitism showing through. Most were from the Middle East but why bother with facts when you can just scream “racism” and “white privilege” like a zombie.

" Most were from the Middle East "

Bullshit. There are no white people from that region of the world.

Most people who settled in Israel initially were dark and from the Middle East. Your ignorance is noted. You lost another debate. Your hatred of Jews is funny given that you cry racism like a bitch nonstop here. Hypocrisy 101.

Bullshit. The only dark people that are actually from that area arent white.

Facts don’t care about your feelings. You lost another debate. Ask any learned person. Most Jews in Israel in 1947 were from surrounding Middle East countries. Exodus pushed Europeans there as well. UK owned land given back to them. Jews banded together vs killing one another at record rates. No Bloods and Crips in the Jewish community.

You just admitted european were pushed there. You lost again. Arent you like 0-197 now? We'll just round it off and say 0-200.

As well not just. I am undefeated against you and everyone else here. But don’t deflect. Jews don’t kill one another at record rates. Maybe you should try doing that instead of crying racism like a bitch. 201-0. You lose again, loser.

You have never won against anyone let alone me. I'm not deflecting. You claimed that the white Isrealies were native and they you admitted that they werent. Thanks for losing without a struggle this time.

Never said they were native. They are now. Just like Americans are native now. And the answer is “may”. Money doesn’t mean jack if you don’t know how to budget properly. 203-0. Stop killing yourselves at record rates.

According to Sports Illustrated, 78% of NFL playerswho are retired for only two years file for bankruptcy, and after five years of retirement, 60% of NBA players suffer the same fate

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

By that operational definition George Floyd was weak too. Thanks.

They had 4 cops on him so no.

I mean when he pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, had his crew rob her and then pistol whip her. Pretty cowardly by my definition but not by yours it seems.

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Who’s sitting back having a margarita tonight?

Not the cop that got fired. Why do you ask?

He probably has a million dollar pension lol

That will go to the guys family after its all said and done. That will change the families trajectory. Tell him thanks for the donation.

May change the trajectory not “will” you don’t know that. You don’t have ESP.

It will change the trajectory. Wealth is the great equalizer. I know that for a fact.

For some not for all. So the answer is “may”. You would not know a fact if it hit you on your racist ass.

The answer is will. Not much you can do to change that fact.

According to Sports Illustrated, 78% of NFL playerswho are retired for only two years file for bankruptcy, and after five years of retirement, 60% of NBA players suffer the same fate

May....204-0. This is too easy. You should put me on ignore like Marc and IM2Stupid. You’re embarrassing yourself.

 

[Asclepias]

The bottom line is to stop being a racist.

Racism is indemic with humans. Next idea.

Nope. Its on endemic with the pale primate known as the european.

Sorry, but you are not a virgin.

All opinions on this issue are suspect. What of the Arabs toward Israel?

All political marketing.

What of it? Didnt europe plop white people down in Israel and support them with their take over of the area?

There it is. The antisemitism showing through. Most were from the Middle East but why bother with facts when you can just scream “racism” and “white privilege” like a zombie.

" Most were from the Middle East "

Bullshit. There are no white people from that region of the world.

Most people who settled in Israel initially were dark and from the Middle East. Your ignorance is noted. You lost another debate. Your hatred of Jews is funny given that you cry racism like a bitch nonstop here. Hypocrisy 101.

Bullshit. The only dark people that are actually from that area arent white.

Facts don’t care about your feelings. You lost another debate. Ask any learned person. Most Jews in Israel in 1947 were from surrounding Middle East countries. Exodus pushed Europeans there as well. UK owned land given back to them. Jews banded together vs killing one another at record rates. No Bloods and Crips in the Jewish community.

You just admitted european were pushed there. You lost again. Arent you like 0-197 now? We'll just round it off and say 0-200.

As well not just. I am undefeated against you and everyone else here. But don’t deflect. Jews don’t kill one another at record rates. Maybe you should try doing that instead of crying racism like a bitch. 201-0. You lose again, loser.

You have never won against anyone let alone me. I'm not deflecting. You claimed that the white Isrealies were native and they you admitted that they werent. Thanks for losing without a struggle this time.

Never said they were native. They are now. Just like Americans are native now. And the answer is “may”. Money doesn’t mean jack if you don’t know how to budget properly. 203-0. Stop killing yourselves at record rates.

According to Sports Illustrated, 78% of NFL playerswho are retired for only two years file for bankruptcy, and after five years of retirement, 60% of NBA players suffer the same fate

Yeah you did. You said so because I said this.

" Didnt europe plop white people down in Israel and support them with their take over of the area? "

 

[Asclepias]

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

By that operational definition George Floyd was weak too. Thanks.

They had 4 cops on him so no.

I mean when he pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, had his crew rob her and then pistol whip her. Pretty cowardly by my definition but not by yours it seems.

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Who’s sitting back having a margarita tonight?

Not the cop that got fired. Why do you ask?

He probably has a million dollar pension lol

That will go to the guys family after its all said and done. That will change the families trajectory. Tell him thanks for the donation.

May change the trajectory not “will” you don’t know that. You don’t have ESP.

It will change the trajectory. Wealth is the great equalizer. I know that for a fact.

For some not for all. So the answer is “may”. You would not know a fact if it hit you on your racist ass.

The answer is will. Not much you can do to change that fact.

According to Sports Illustrated, 78% of NFL playerswho are retired for only two years file for bankruptcy, and after five years of retirement, 60% of NBA players suffer the same fate

May....204-0. This is too easy. You should put me on ignore like Marc and IM2Stupid. You’re embarrassing yourself.

White agents ripping them off. 0-205 for you. Sorry but I gotta put you on the bench dude. Youre no competition at all.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

By that operational definition George Floyd was weak too. Thanks.

They had 4 cops on him so no.

I mean when he pointed a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, had his crew rob her and then pistol whip her. Pretty cowardly by my definition but not by yours it seems.

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

"It Seems We've Reached A Point Where Law Cannot Be Imposed Upon Black Individuals -"
How do you figure? In Atlanta, they shot a drunk black guy after they rousted him out of his car, asleep in the drive thu lane at Wendy's, gave him a field sobiety test (failed it) tried to cuff him, he took a taser from one of them and tried to run away on foot with nothing but the cop's non lethal tazer in his hands, stopped and started to point their tazer at them then turned and tried to run away again, I guess to drunk to know he couldn't outrun the bullets about to hit him in the back and they shot him down with real bullets, just last night, and all caught on video again. Is that what you call imposing real law upon black individuals? He's not going to be screaming about racism. He's dead and I guess Wendy's went back to serving doubles and triples at the drive through. Of course the cop has been fired. The Police chief has resigned and tonight they burned down the Wendy's. What are you whining about? You and I are not black.

He shot it straight at the cop, drunk or not; the cop had to dodge it. The cop was doing his job arresting the guy for DUI. Brooks fought them. He certainly wasn't just running away. He shot at the cop with the weapon he had available; he wasn't going to let them get near. And then he ran again, but there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it again in ten seconds. Until I saw the parking lot video, I thought the same thing--the guy was running and why not just catch up with him later? But he was doing more than that. Maybe a tazer won't kill you (usually anyway) but it will incapacitate you and Brooks would not have shrunk from that, clearly.
It would be great if cops never pointed a gun at an "unarmed" man, but Brooks was armed and ready to use it. Not so lethal, but close enough.
I think this was a righteous shoot. A very suck rotten bitch of an outcome all around, but not a bad shoot.

I've read similar thoughts on the taser as yours.
Here's the thing. A taser is only good for one shot,it then has to be reloaded with another cartridge before you can fire it again.
Although it still has touch capability.

Okay. Now THAT makes sense. All the hunting around I've done, I couldn't find anything on that "one shot" thing. It doesn't really make sense to have a tazer that will only fire one time before you have to run to find an electrical outlet. The situations where you need one usually are pretty hairy.

I had a client who got tazed 14 times in a confrontation with police. He was high on PCP and the tazer wires were getting all tangled up they shot him with so many. Now, I know where this happened and there aren't even 14 cops on the force, so I know there weren't 14 "one shot" stun guns in use that night. But having to put in a new cartridge? And since Brooks got the gun but not more cartridges, his tazer was a one shot deal, then, right? Is that what you're saying? That makes sense. However, I've read on Google hits that there are two shot models. They probably hold two cartridges.

But this is all a side issue, sorta. The more critical question is why Rourke switched from the tazer to the gun. Maybe because HE ran out of cartridges--the reports are that they had tazed--or attempted to taze--Brooks multiple times already.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rourke's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rourke would have known there could be no more shots fired from the tazer. But we don't know, for sure, any of this. We don't know what type of tazers these policemen were using, how many shots they'd already fired (witnesses say at least three) or any other specifics about cartridges, battery charge, etc.

He was pissed off that his taser got taken from him and he was too weak to stop it. Like one of the police chiefs said on the news. If a suspect is fleeing you have the option to either get some exercise or call for back up. Shooting him in the back is going to result in SOB being charged probably around Wed.

He shot him when brooks shot at him ,, the strong race won

The weak race had a gun. Thats the only way they can win.

Smart and powerful

The cops were weak and needy.

You saw avid the choke hold twice, could have been choked out easy

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Who’s sitting back having a margarita tonight?

Not the cop that got fired. Why do you ask?

He probably has a million dollar pension lol

That will go to the guys family after its all said and done. That will change the families trajectory. Tell him thanks for the donation.

May change the trajectory not “will” you don’t know that. You don’t have ESP.

It will change the trajectory. Wealth is the great equalizer. I know that for a fact.

For some not for all. So the answer is “may”. You would not know a fact if it hit you on your racist ass.

The answer is will. Not much you can do to change that fact.

According to Sports Illustrated, 78% of NFL playerswho are retired for only two years file for bankruptcy, and after five years of retirement, 60% of NBA players suffer the same fate

May....204-0. This is too easy. You should put me on ignore like Marc and IM2Stupid. You’re embarrassing yourself.

White agents ripping them off. 0-205 for you.

Link...and I never mentioned color in that post, you did. Everything is racism. I made You look like a fool again. 206-0. When shit goes wrong you blame white people. Sad. 207-0.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The bottom line is to stop being a racist.

Racism is indemic with humans. Next idea.

Nope. Its on endemic with the pale primate known as the european.

Sorry, but you are not a virgin.

All opinions on this issue are suspect. What of the Arabs toward Israel?

All political marketing.

What of it? Didnt europe plop white people down in Israel and support them with their take over of the area?

There it is. The antisemitism showing through. Most were from the Middle East but why bother with facts when you can just scream “racism” and “white privilege” like a zombie.

" Most were from the Middle East "

Bullshit. There are no white people from that region of the world.

Most people who settled in Israel initially were dark and from the Middle East. Your ignorance is noted. You lost another debate. Your hatred of Jews is funny given that you cry racism like a bitch nonstop here. Hypocrisy 101.

Bullshit. The only dark people that are actually from that area arent white.

Facts don’t care about your feelings. You lost another debate. Ask any learned person. Most Jews in Israel in 1947 were from surrounding Middle East countries. Exodus pushed Europeans there as well. UK owned land given back to them. Jews banded together vs killing one another at record rates. No Bloods and Crips in the Jewish community.

You just admitted european were pushed there. You lost again. Arent you like 0-197 now? We'll just round it off and say 0-200.

As well not just. I am undefeated against you and everyone else here. But don’t deflect. Jews don’t kill one another at record rates. Maybe you should try doing that instead of crying racism like a bitch. 201-0. You lose again, loser.

You have never won against anyone let alone me. I'm not deflecting. You claimed that the white Isrealies were native and they you admitted that they werent. Thanks for losing without a struggle this time.

Never said they were native. They are now. Just like Americans are native now. And the answer is “may”. Money doesn’t mean jack if you don’t know how to budget properly. 203-0. Stop killing yourselves at record rates.

According to Sports Illustrated, 78% of NFL playerswho are retired for only two years file for bankruptcy, and after five years of retirement, 60% of NBA players suffer the same fate

Yeah you did. You said so because I said this.

" Didnt europe plop white people down in Israel and support them with their take over of the area? "

In addition to the natives being there. Context matters 208-0.

 

[OldLady]

Shooting him in the back is going to result in the SOB being charged probably around Wed.

Could be. Back to my client that got stunned 14 times, they never shot him. We've got a huge drug problem around here and nary a soul has been killed by a cop, even though they confront raging drunks and guys jacked on any number of drugs, some of them armed, all of them dangerous My client lived to lie in an ER bed for over a week waiting for an opening at the psych hospital. People may laugh at us rubes, but maybe our cops need to teach city cops how to handle folks who are out of line.

How about better parenting so that people don’t get out of line?

This isn't a parenting thread. Save it.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Promoting Superiority Of Those Who Cannot Help Themselves "

* Weakness Of Social Dependency *

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Being dumb and easily outsmarted is weakness .

If the median iq of blacks is 85 , then half of black are less intelligent than that and that is not the fault of whites .

Those uppity blacks who think all blacks are equal with themselves in intelligence and those self loathing whites who espouse that " all men are created equal " while only admitting that " all are equally human " can banter all day about how racism is the cause of economic disparities , but the irony is that those levying such tripe must face a reality that genetics accounts for a great deal in intelligence and that intelligence is relevant to ones ability to advance economically .

IQ Scores - AssessmentPsychology.com

Information on IQ scores, assessment, testing, classification, and distribution.

www.assessmentpsychology.com

​

Measured Intelligence and Education

​

WAIS Mean IQ​	Educational Equivalent​
125​	Mean of persons receiving Ph.D. and M.D. degrees​
115​	Mean of college graduates​
105​	Mean of high school graduates​
100​	Average for total population​
75​	About 50-50 chance of reaching ninth grade​

​

Matarazzo, Joseph D. Wechsler's Measure and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence, 5th Edition.
Oxford University Press, 1972.

​

Best Estimate of IQ Differences for Adults in Different Occupations

​

WAIS-R Mean IQ Range​	Occupational Category​
110-112​	Professional and technical​
103-104​	Managers, clerical, sales​
100-102​	Skilled workers​
92-94​	Semiskilled workers​
87-89​	Unskilled workers​

 

[Asclepias]

" Promoting Superiority Of Those Who Cannot Help Themselves "

* Weakness Of Social Dependency *

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Being dumb and easily outsmarted is weakness .

If the median iq of blacks is 85 , then half of black are less intelligent than that and that is not the fault of whites .

Those uppity blacks who think all blacks are equal with themselves in intelligence and those self loathing whites who espouse that " all men are created equal " while only admitting that " all are equally human " , can banter all day about how racism is the cause of economic disparities , but the irony is that those levying such tripe must face a reality that genetics accounts for a great deal in intelligence and that intelligence is relevant to ones ability to advance economically .

IQ Scores - AssessmentPsychology.com

Information on IQ scores, assessment, testing, classification, and distribution.

www.assessmentpsychology.com

​

Measured Intelligence and Education

​

WAIS Mean IQ​	Educational Equivalent​
125​	Mean of persons receiving Ph.D. and M.D. degrees​
115​	Mean of college graduates​
105​	Mean of high school graduates​
100​	Average for total population​
75​	About 50-50 chance of reaching ninth grade​

​

Matarazzo, Joseph D. Wechsler's Measure and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence, 5th Edition.
Oxford University Press, 1972.

​

Best Estimate of IQ Differences for Adults in Different Occupations

​

WAIS-R Mean IQ Range​	Occupational Category​
110-112​	Professional and technical​
103-104​	Managers, clerical, sales​
100-102​	Skilled workers​
92-94​	Semiskilled workers​
87-89​	Unskilled workers​

Says the dumb guy that thinks a test can measure how intelligent he is.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Shooting him in the back is going to result in the SOB being charged probably around Wed.

Could be. Back to my client that got stunned 14 times, they never shot him. We've got a huge drug problem around here and nary a soul has been killed by a cop, even though they confront raging drunks and guys jacked on any number of drugs, some of them armed, all of them dangerous My client lived to lie in an ER bed for over a week waiting for an opening at the psych hospital. People may laugh at us rubes, but maybe our cops need to teach city cops how to handle folks who are out of line.

How about better parenting so that people don’t get out of line?

This isn't a parenting thread. Save it.

Aha. Cause I am right. Teachers and cops aren’t parents. Stop giving them those rules.

 

[Markle]

The bottom line is to stop being a racist.

So youre saying that there is no racism in the US?

So you're saying everyone is racist?

Statically, only about seventeen percent of white Americans have little or no automatic preference to whites or blacks. Only twelve percent show a slight to strong preference of blacks to whites. This is part of the results and explained at the test. It is free and you can choose to register or not. It’s fun, but I have also seen people go off the handle which is why it comes with a warning.

Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT) Here is a tool that allows each of us to discover hidden cognitive biases. Most people are aware of their own overt biases, but it is very difficult for us to become aware of our covert biases. This is a test that can be taken by each individual for their own benefit.

This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test or IAT for short.

WARNING!
It does carry this disclaimer:

I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations of my IAT test performance with which I may not agree. Knowing this, I wish to proceed.

Project Implicit
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Welcome
You have selected the Race Task. In this study, you will complete an Implicit Association Test (IAT) in which you will be asked to sort pictures and words into groups as fast as you can. In addition to the IAT, there are some questions about your beliefs, attitudes, and opinions, and some standard demographic questions. This study should take about 10 minutes to complete. At the end, you will receive your IAT result along with information about what it means.

We thank you for being here!
Race
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

No. I'm saying most whites are racist. We know this because of several key indicators. So individual whites claiming that being accused of racism sucks is irrelevant. I already took the test. I have a strong preference for Black people.

I dont know where you got that 17% figure but its very wrong.

The figure comes from the Harvard study. I've taken the test several times. My results placed me in that 17% bracket. Good to see that without taking the test you acknowledge being a serious racist.

OK. I misread your claim. Only 17% of americans show no bias either way. That proves my point that most whites are racist. I already said I took the test before. I guess you misread like I did.

Nonsense. Simply having a bias does not make one a racist.

Everyone has a bias. It would be impossible to NOT have biases.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

" Promoting Superiority Of Those Who Cannot Help Themselves "

* Weakness Of Social Dependency *

Two cops against 1 guy?. They were weak.

Being dumb and easily outsmarted is weakness .

If the median iq of blacks is 85 , then half of black are less intelligent than that and that is not the fault of whites .

Those uppity blacks who think all blacks are equal with themselves in intelligence and those self loathing whites who espouse that " all men are created equal " while only admitting that " all are equally human " , can banter all day about how racism is the cause of economic disparities , but the irony is that those levying such tripe must face a reality that genetics accounts for a great deal in intelligence and that intelligence is relevant to ones ability to advance economically .

IQ Scores - AssessmentPsychology.com

Information on IQ scores, assessment, testing, classification, and distribution.

www.assessmentpsychology.com

​

Measured Intelligence and Education

​

WAIS Mean IQ​	Educational Equivalent​
125​	Mean of persons receiving Ph.D. and M.D. degrees​
115​	Mean of college graduates​
105​	Mean of high school graduates​
100​	Average for total population​
75​	About 50-50 chance of reaching ninth grade​

​

Matarazzo, Joseph D. Wechsler's Measure and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence, 5th Edition.
Oxford University Press, 1972.

​

Best Estimate of IQ Differences for Adults in Different Occupations

​

WAIS-R Mean IQ Range​	Occupational Category​
110-112​	Professional and technical​
103-104​	Managers, clerical, sales​
100-102​	Skilled workers​
92-94​	Semiskilled workers​
87-89​	Unskilled workers​

Says the dumb guy that thinks a test can measure how intelligent he is.

As test indeed can. For example you’re a moron. 211-0. A racist moron at that.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" When Arrogance Trumps Science "

* Cranial Capacity And Neuron Density No Bias Necessary *

Says the dumb guy that thinks a test can measure how intelligent he is.

Are you actually that stupid ?

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Overall, MRI studies show that brain size is related to IQ differences within race. Moreover, the three-way pattern of group differences in average brain size is detectable at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites, and Whites average 5 cubic inches more cranial capacity than Blacks. These findings on group differences in average brain size have been replicated using MRI, endocranial volume from empty skulls, wet brain weight at autopsy, and external head size measures.

 

[Asclepias]

The bottom line is to stop being a racist.

So youre saying that there is no racism in the US?

So you're saying everyone is racist?

Statically, only about seventeen percent of white Americans have little or no automatic preference to whites or blacks. Only twelve percent show a slight to strong preference of blacks to whites. This is part of the results and explained at the test. It is free and you can choose to register or not. It’s fun, but I have also seen people go off the handle which is why it comes with a warning.

Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT) Here is a tool that allows each of us to discover hidden cognitive biases. Most people are aware of their own overt biases, but it is very difficult for us to become aware of our covert biases. This is a test that can be taken by each individual for their own benefit.

This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test or IAT for short.

WARNING!
It does carry this disclaimer:

I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations of my IAT test performance with which I may not agree. Knowing this, I wish to proceed.

Project Implicit
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Welcome
You have selected the Race Task. In this study, you will complete an Implicit Association Test (IAT) in which you will be asked to sort pictures and words into groups as fast as you can. In addition to the IAT, there are some questions about your beliefs, attitudes, and opinions, and some standard demographic questions. This study should take about 10 minutes to complete. At the end, you will receive your IAT result along with information about what it means.

We thank you for being here!
Race
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

No. I'm saying most whites are racist. We know this because of several key indicators. So individual whites claiming that being accused of racism sucks is irrelevant. I already took the test. I have a strong preference for Black people.

I dont know where you got that 17% figure but its very wrong.

The figure comes from the Harvard study. I've taken the test several times. My results placed me in that 17% bracket. Good to see that without taking the test you acknowledge being a serious racist.

OK. I misread your claim. Only 17% of americans show no bias either way. That proves my point that most whites are racist. I already said I took the test before. I guess you misread like I did.

Nonsense. Simply having a bias does not make one a racist.

Everyone has a bias. It would be impossible to NOT have biases.

Agreed. However when you couple those biases with the power of being the majority it creates racism. Face it. Whites created a system to give themselves a head start and they wish to maintain that head start. You think these low life white boys on here cry about affirmative action now. Youre going to need ear muffs if reparations are paid.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

- without screams of racism.

So. What is the bottom line?

If nothing else the last 2 months is proof that the wrong side won the Civil War

You got your asses kicked. Deal with it. Bring that traitor flag around me and I am going to make you swallow it.

What people will say anonymously on the Internet!