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

[Carl in Michigan]

Police are just going to have to start using darts with a sedative. There is literally no way for them to do their job now with the tools they have.

How is it that other cops are able to do their job without killing a Black person?

Every "job" is different. In this incident I saw the black guy overpower two cops take their taser run away and then point the taser at them. They need something better than guns and tasers IMO. Neither weapon produces a good result.

I guarantee you there are a couple of cops that have not even drawn their weapons that do the exact same job. Most cops have a power trip problem and most Black men are Alphas. The two dont mix. The good cops dont start shit so they dont get shit.

No, they're just too stupid to function in society

 

[Darkwind]

I realize math is hard, but if 99.5% of the cops are good cops who don't kill blacks, that leaves just a meager 0.005% who are questionable.

So, do go look up the number of cops -- local, state, and federal, and multiply that by 0.005.

That would be a rough estimate of how many bad cops that like to kill people there are, statistically speaking.

I'm sure that on any given year, the numbers are smaller or larger.

The one thing that is clearly certain.

There is no slaughter of blacks being perpetrated by cops against blacks. There is no systemic racism in the police force and what racism you find is predominately in Democrat-held strongholds.

Obviously, arithmetic is beyond your capabilities. Saying math is hard, is a gross understatement for you.

FYI

100.00%
- 99.50%
000.50% NOT 000.005%

That isn't a rounding error it is the difference between a ripple on a pond and a tsunami!

Apparently, you never learned to convert decimals to a percentage and back.

convert decimals to percentage - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

LOL
I wondered if anyone was going to pick up on that. I figured it wasn't worth trying.

You too, eh?

Give it a try.

1 = 100%

0.995 = 99.5%

1 - 0.995 = 0.005

Get it?

 

[OldLady]

- 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.

There you go again blaming whites for your many failings

Nope. All my failings are on me. People that dont fail never achieve. Its part of the process. Thats a free life tip for you.

Of course they are on you. You’re a giant failure and that’s why you demand reparations. You’re a parasite.

Quit wasting thread space on your ridiculous personal issues with A. Reparations are probably a pipe dream, but the concept isn't far fetched. The federal and some state governments have corrected injustices to the Native American tribes with reparations, though they didn't necessarily call them that. It was owed to them for broken treaties and horrendous racial treatment. The injections of large amounts of money into the native tribes has helped them turn around abject poverty and all the problems associated with it. They aren't done. These things take generations. But it's a start and it works.

 

[Oldestyle]

The bottom line is that Black people fear the police and no one has yet tried to do a damned thing about it.

What is wrong with black people in this country all of a sudden! What could possibly make someone think that taking a Police officer's Taser away and trying to shoot them with it is going to end well for you? Have you all lost your fucking minds? I am SO tired of this crap! And then you burn down the Wendy's? What the hell did they do? What in God's name is wrong with you people? You want people to feel sympathy for you when you act the way you do? I'm sorry but the worst enemy of blacks in America at this very moment are blacks themselves! The absolutely idiotic things that you are doing are indefensible!

You think they are indefensible? The blacks can take a drug addicted criminal and make a martyr out of him with the help of the media. The black people can take an unjust cause and disrupt the entire nation - and the nightly news on tv "justifies" it every night. PLENTY of white people now feel sorry for the blacks. They wear t shirts apologizing for being white; they get on their knees and cry crocodile tears because of the false sense of guilt that has been instilled in them due to a dishonest rendering of America's history and the status quo of today.

The burning of a Wendys (whose late founder was a pabulum puking liberal) is small potatoes. Think about the removal of the monuments, statues, memorials, and plaques. How about the removal of the Confederate flag as if race were the ONLY thing that flag represented (everybody forgets the good things that flag represented like chivalry and honor.) The blacks are changing the names of street signs and removing the names of our ancestors from schools and other government buildings. They are having the word racism changed in the dictionary so that they are completely shielded from any criticism. They are even on tv bitching because band aids are flesh colored and that is supposedly a racist symbol. Spray painting National Monuments like the Lincoln Memorial and going after every vestige of our history is very effective for these rioters. This is the strategy that is employed by people like Isis. So effective are they that the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, skinheads, and the alt right ... and all the other white activists are hiding under their beds, pissing on themselves, and hoping that these mobs don't begin focusing their attention on them rather than the cops. They are changing America and the only resistance to their violence, hatred and intolerance is by people on social media ... and even then most of that criticism is being done anonymously. Before this is over with Richard Spencer and David Duke will be on tv apologizing for being white, Trump will be a one term president, and every white person in America will feel guilty that the police came down on blacks based upon the numbers of crimes they committed instead of worrying about the racial makeup of the people in jail. The thinking will be that we should put whites in jail over their racial ideology instead of tossing black drug dealers into jail.

Indefensible you say? If that is the case, why has there not been a group of white activists, civilian militia, or SOMEBODY to step in and condemn it? Oh, that's right. Some dumb ass would call them a racist and then it would be a career ender for that person - and the white supremacists???? Cowards, the whole lot of 'em.

You whites vote criminals into public office. Shut up racist. The rioters have been mostly whites.

Let's talk about "looters", IM2...want to claim that THEY have been mostly whites? Go ahead...I dare ya!

 

[OldLady]

- 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 Rolfe 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 Rolfe's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rolfe 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.

After looking apparently there are multi shot tasers now. Learn something new everyday.
Of course we'd need to know if the officer was carrying one or not.
If he only fired one and there was another still available that makes the shooting even more justified.

I know police are trained that self protection is paramount. If they're dead or injured they can't help anyone. So Rolfe's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rolfe 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.
[/QUOTE]

After looking apparently there are multi shot tasers now. Learn something new everyday.
Of course we'd need to know if the officer was carrying one or not.
If he only fired one and there was another still available that makes the shooting even more justified.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. We don't have enough information on this to theorize.
Glad I could help you learn something new today.

 

[MizMolly]

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.

You don’t know most white people. There are no indicators to prove this.

I dont have to know most white people to understand that most of them are racist. Its a simple matter of deduction buoyed by historical events near and far.

If you are judging whites today by all whites throughout history you would see that most whites are not racists. That would be as wrong as me blaming all blacks today by the violence committed by some blacks in the crime ridden cities.

 

[OldLady]

I realize math is hard, but if 99.5% of the cops are good cops who don't kill blacks, that leaves just a meager 0.005% who are questionable.

So, do go look up the number of cops -- local, state, and federal, and multiply that by 0.005.

That would be a rough estimate of how many bad cops that like to kill people there are, statistically speaking.

I'm sure that on any given year, the numbers are smaller or larger.

The one thing that is clearly certain.

There is no slaughter of blacks being perpetrated by cops against blacks. There is no systemic racism in the police force and what racism you find is predominately in Democrat-held strongholds.

Obviously, arithmetic is beyond your capabilities. Saying math is hard, is a gross understatement for you.

FYI

100.00%
- 99.50%
000.50% NOT 000.005%

That isn't a rounding error it is the difference between a ripple on a pond and a tsunami!

Apparently, you never learned to convert decimals to a percentage and back.

convert decimals to percentage - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

LOL
I wondered if anyone was going to pick up on that. I figured it wasn't worth trying.

You too, eh?

Give it a try.

1 = 100%

0.995 = 99.5%

1 - 0.995 = 0.005

Get it?

Yup. But that isn't what you said. 0.005 doesn't equal .005% That would be 0.5% Maybe you just misspoke in your earlier post. You do know that to convert a decimal to a percent, you move the decimal point two places to the right?

I don't know how many cops there are in this country, but with a large # like that, it sure does make a difference where you put your decimal point in determining a percentage.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

You don’t know most white people. There are no indicators to prove this.

I dont have to know most white people to understand that most of them are racist. Its a simple matter of deduction buoyed by historical events near and far.

If you are judging whites today by all whites throughout history you would see that most whites are not racists. That would be as wrong as me blaming all blacks today by the violence committed by some blacks in the crime ridden cities.

They are changing the defintition of race. If you are not wholly committed to the idea of multiculturalism and the destruction of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, you are a racist. Period.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Police are just going to have to start using darts with a sedative. There is literally no way for them to do their job now with the tools they have.

How is it that other cops are able to do their job without killing a Black person?

lots of cops out there are pretty stupid and many seem to lack some kind of training.....the good cops who use a little intelligence and seem to be better trained are going to have to start policing those who are giving them a bad rep.....and each precinct knows who they are.....

 

[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.

You don’t know most white people. There are no indicators to prove this.

I dont have to know most white people to understand that most of them are racist. Its a simple matter of deduction buoyed by historical events near and far.

If you are judging whites today by all whites throughout history you would see that most whites are not racists. That would be as wrong as me blaming all blacks today by the violence committed by some blacks in the crime ridden cities.

So explain this if you honestly expect me to believe that most whites are not racist. Why have Blacks not been paid reparations from slavery and Jim Crow?

 

[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. Sorry but I gotta put you on the bench dude. Youre no competition at all.

There you go again blaming whites for your many failings

Nope. All my failings are on me. People that dont fail never achieve. Its part of the process. Thats a free life tip for you.

Of course they are on you. You’re a giant failure and that’s why you demand reparations. You’re a parasite.

Quit wasting thread space on your ridiculous personal issues with A. Reparations are probably a pipe dream, but the concept isn't far fetched. The federal and some state governments have corrected injustices to the Native American tribes with reparations, though they didn't necessarily call them that. It was owed to them for broken treaties and horrendous racial treatment. The injections of large amounts of money into the native tribes has helped them turn around abject poverty and all the problems associated with it. They aren't done. These things take generations. But it's a start and it works.

Free country. Reparations? LOL you're a loon. Everyone in the US is born with equal rights. Rest is up to you.

 

[Asclepias]

- 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!

You can always find out in person. i will even pick you up from the airport. You down?

Well apparently you people cannot live in a civilized society and follow the laws of that society, so it is you that don;t belong here

We created civilization for you so of course we can live in one. Its whites with their bellicose beliefs and emphasis on war and genocide which has caused the planets problems.

What fantasy world do you live in? So what happened to your great society.. Never mind I already know your answer, the whites ruined it.

I dont live in a fantasy world. Its you that live in one. Yes whites over ran and colonized Africa. Are you denying this because you are living in a fantasy world?

Not denying it, but mud huts do not make up a civilization even if they are made out of elephant dung to keep the lions away

Actually they do make up a civilization but even if they didnt other Africans developed what you have no choice but to accept as civilization because thats where you got civilization from. I ask again because no one seems to want to tackle this question. If whites were so smart why were they last to civilization?

 

[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!

You can always find out in person. i will even pick you up from the airport. You down?

Well apparently you people cannot live in a civilized society and follow the laws of that society, so it is you that don;t belong here

We created civilization for you so of course we can live in one. Its whites with their bellicose beliefs and emphasis on war and genocide which has caused the planets problems.

What fantasy world do you live in? So what happened to your great society.. Never mind I already know your answer, the whites ruined it.

I dont live in a fantasy world. Its you that live in one. Yes whites over ran and colonized Africa. Are you denying this because you are living in a fantasy world?

Not denying it, but mud huts do not make up a civilization even if they are made out of elephant dung to keep the lions away

Actually they do make up a civilization but even if they didnt other Africans developed what you have no choice but to accept as civilization because thats where you got civilization from. I ask again because no one seems to want to tackle this question. If whites were so smart why were they last to civilization?

Are you sure you didn't start out with a faulty presupposition?

 

[White 6]

- 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 Rolfe 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 Rolfe's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rolfe 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.

After looking apparently there are multi shot tasers now. Learn something new everyday.
Of course we'd need to know if the officer was carrying one or not.
If he only fired one and there was another still available that makes the shooting even more justified.

Here is a couple of questions. Seeing online, when I searched cost of tasers used by Atlanta PD, did not see specifically the one they used, but did see $1103.00 for the ones SFPD uses and $337.00 for the cartridges. Would running away with one constitute grand theft? and Can a cop legally shoot a fleeing felon in the act of grand theft? For civilians in TN, the answer to the last one is NO. There must be self defense threat to life or threat to others involved.

 

[Asclepias]

- 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!

You can always find out in person. i will even pick you up from the airport. You down?

Well apparently you people cannot live in a civilized society and follow the laws of that society, so it is you that don;t belong here

We created civilization for you so of course we can live in one. Its whites with their bellicose beliefs and emphasis on war and genocide which has caused the planets problems.

What fantasy world do you live in? So what happened to your great society.. Never mind I already know your answer, the whites ruined it.

I dont live in a fantasy world. Its you that live in one. Yes whites over ran and colonized Africa. Are you denying this because you are living in a fantasy world?

Not denying it, but mud huts do not make up a civilization even if they are made out of elephant dung to keep the lions away

Actually they do make up a civilization but even if they didnt other Africans developed what you have no choice but to accept as civilization because thats where you got civilization from. I ask again because no one seems to want to tackle this question. If whites were so smart why were they last to civilization?

Are you sure you didn't start out with a faulty presupposition?

I'm positive and I am positive you are going to tell us some white boy fables about history in order to pretend the facts dont exist.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

- 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!

You can always find out in person. i will even pick you up from the airport. You down?

Well apparently you people cannot live in a civilized society and follow the laws of that society, so it is you that don;t belong here

We created civilization for you so of course we can live in one. Its whites with their bellicose beliefs and emphasis on war and genocide which has caused the planets problems.

What fantasy world do you live in? So what happened to your great society.. Never mind I already know your answer, the whites ruined it.

I dont live in a fantasy world. Its you that live in one. Yes whites over ran and colonized Africa. Are you denying this because you are living in a fantasy world?

Not denying it, but mud huts do not make up a civilization even if they are made out of elephant dung to keep the lions away

Actually they do make up a civilization but even if they didnt other Africans developed what you have no choice but to accept as civilization because thats where you got civilization from. I ask again because no one seems to want to tackle this question. If whites were so smart why were they last to civilization?

"Last to Civilization"?

What does that even mean? Perhaps they evolved quicker than others?

 

[Markle]

I realize math is hard, but if 99.5% of the cops are good cops who don't kill blacks, that leaves just a meager 0.005% who are questionable.

So, do go look up the number of cops -- local, state, and federal, and multiply that by 0.005.

That would be a rough estimate of how many bad cops that like to kill people there are, statistically speaking.

I'm sure that on any given year, the numbers are smaller or larger.

The one thing that is clearly certain.

There is no slaughter of blacks being perpetrated by cops against blacks. There is no systemic racism in the police force and what racism you find is predominately in Democrat-held strongholds.

Obviously, arithmetic is beyond your capabilities. Saying math is hard, is a gross understatement for you.

FYI

100.00%
- 99.50%
000.50% NOT 000.005%

That isn't a rounding error it is the difference between a ripple on a pond and a tsunami!

Apparently, you never learned to convert decimals to a percentage and back.

convert decimals to percentage - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

I didn't put 000.005.

100% - 99.5% = 0.005 or 1 - 0.995 = 0.005

In case you flunked math...

Give it a try. Hit your windows key, then type calc and hit enter.

When you calculator appears, put in the formula.

Now you're attempting to leave out the percentage sign. I bet you cheated in elementary school too!

This is your post.

"I realize math is hard, but if 99.5% of the cops are good cops who don't kill blacks, that leaves just a meager 0.005% who are questionable."

99.5%
+00.005%
099.505% NOT 100.00%

What part is not clear to you? Why not just say OOPS? Of course, you did ridicule because of your wrong judgment of someone else's arithmetic skill. Yeah, that is pretty embarrassing!

 

[Rocko]

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.

When whites sat across the table from one and other and decided on creating a system that screws over blacks, those white idiots fucked up with Asians. What isn’t funny is the garbage you spew is the mainstream, meanwhile the truth gets surpressed.

 

[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 Rolfe 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 Rolfe's self preservation instinct kicked in when Brooks fired at him. If it's true the tazer only holds one cartridge, Rolfe 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.

After looking apparently there are multi shot tasers now. Learn something new everyday.
Of course we'd need to know if the officer was carrying one or not.
If he only fired one and there was another still available that makes the shooting even more justified.

Here is a couple of questions. Seeing online, when I searched cost of tasers used by Atlanta PD, did not see specifically the one they used, but did see $1103.00 for the ones SFPD uses and $337.00 for the cartridges. Would running away with one constitute grand theft? and Can a cop legally shoot a fleeing felon in the act of grand theft? For civilians in TN, the answer to the last one is NO. There must be self defense threat to life or threat to others involved.

Same thing in Georgia. The DA was on TV talking about it. Dudes going to get charged.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

- 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!

You can always find out in person. i will even pick you up from the airport. You down?

Well apparently you people cannot live in a civilized society and follow the laws of that society, so it is you that don;t belong here

We created civilization for you so of course we can live in one. Its whites with their bellicose beliefs and emphasis on war and genocide which has caused the planets problems.

What fantasy world do you live in? So what happened to your great society.. Never mind I already know your answer, the whites ruined it.

I dont live in a fantasy world. Its you that live in one. Yes whites over ran and colonized Africa. Are you denying this because you are living in a fantasy world?

Not denying it, but mud huts do not make up a civilization even if they are made out of elephant dung to keep the lions away

Actually they do make up a civilization but even if they didnt other Africans developed what you have no choice but to accept as civilization because thats where you got civilization from. I ask again because no one seems to want to tackle this question. If whites were so smart why were they last to civilization?

Are you sure you didn't start out with a faulty presupposition?

I'm positive and I am positive you are going to tell us some white boy fables about history in order to pretend the facts dont exist.

250-0.