Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Atlanta News First " channel.

To protect the citizens form someone that was sleeping in his car, the officer shot to an occupied car. I don't think the people in the car felt that much protected.
3
That's not what happened. He resisted to be handcuffed but didn't attack them. He tried to hit one of the cops once only after 21 seconds of struggle and after one of them tased him, then he fled.
2
@Guangtian2077 Self defense from what? A spent taser (that, even if not spent, would have had a max range of 10 feet) held by a drunk that was running away?
2
@willferrellssweetnips The guy was sleeping in his car, hardly a danger. To stop that violent sleeper, the officer shot an occupied car. Is that in some manual?
2
Order someone to "stop fighting" while you are struggling with him is not "de escalating". "you have no right to, so i'm allowed to" is exactly the opposite to de-escalating, de-escalating means to not directly confront someone and to not challenge him. It means to explain what's better for him without threatening or ordering "because I say so". That's ESPECIALLY true when you are dealing with someone that you already know is drunk. In the present case, it has to be said that the inability of two officers to restrain a single drunk person (and to have allowed him to grab one of their tasers after they used it on him) does not speak favourably of their competence. Finally, when the same drunk person was shot three times (two on target), he had already used the taser (he didn't hit the cop, because he was out of range, and you can see the electrodes dragged behind Rayshard Brooks). At that point, the taser was less dangerous than a water gun.
2
@christinas.5240 Caps lock doesn't make what you write less wrong. His past has not weight in how he should have been treated. Is not up to the cops to administer punishments on the basis of someone's past. For what the cops knew, he could have drunk after he stopped. The Supreme Court has stated several times that a suspect fleeing was not sufficient reason to shoot at him.
2
@Guangtian2077 If you say so... Simply it's not up to the cops to administer punishments.
1
@Guangtian2077 I don't need to be the perfect plumber to recognise a leaking pipe. If the taser is considered a firearm in Georgia, then why it had been used on the suspect? Did they want to kill him?
1
@SgtJoeSmith It was spent. You can clearly see the electrodes dragged behind Rayshard Brooks while he run. So, what's the point in stating it was a "firearm"? To try impress the readers? Again, if its lethal, then the cops wanted to kill the suspect, since they used it BEFORE he tried to hit any of them? But don't think about it too much. You don't have enough brain for such activities.
1
@willferrellssweetnips Being drunk is not a crime, he was sleeping (had him passed out, the cops should have called an ambulance) and the car was parked, not correctly maybe, but parked. The Supreme Court has estabilished several times that a suspect fleeing is not a reason to shoot him. Don't shoot to fleeing suspects and you won't be fired and charged for murder.
1
Had the cop not shot three times someone that was fleeing (hitting an occupied car too BTW) he would be alive anyway. And the cop would still have his job. And he would not have been charged for murder.
1
@robertvigneault7114 since he was running away, a "weapon" that can be used only in contact doesn't pose any immediate threat, but u would not know cuz u only want to fangirl about your heros. Guessing what the suspect may, or not, do ("FACT" LOL!) and administer prehemptive punishments is not a cop's job but u would not know cuz u only want to fangirl about your heros. You know nothing about me, but u would not care cuz u only want to fangirl about your heros. Then fangirl without bothering me.
1
@harrysweeten9417 I don't needo to be a plumber to recognise a leaking pipe. In seconds? Everyone makes life-death decisions in split seconds every day while driving.
1