But Seriously...

Jocko is a thinking-man’s badass. He also has a well-thought take on things despite the environment that made him what he is. If the police stopped buying bearcats and put it into educating them in more than just a glorified gym and civics class, things would be MUCH better.

Diverting responsibilities should also happen. Mental health issues should have money and resources taken from the police so we can bring back “The Men In The White Coats”.

...if, of course, it can be accomplished in a humane way this time around. Which won’t be easy. Paranoid schizophrenics and the criminally insane aren’t exactly the easiest demographics to coax.

 

You'd think now of all times, the police wouldn't be so heavy-handed, especially in a city like Atlanta.

I mean, you shoot someone in the back when they were running away, you get charged until you are cleared. If you're innocent, what's the problem? Isn't that the logic applied to us, especially regarding surveillance, searches and stop and frisks? What, no faith in our system? You're worried a jury of your peers won't exonerate you? Aww....how sad. Maybe this will encourage your fellow officers to not pull their guns so fast. Isn't that how...justice is supposed to work?

It seems dishonest that they have "one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet" and "put their life on the line every shift" and yet the threat of accountability makes them walk off the job, or stop answering calls. Seems pretty fragile to me.

It also seems like a pretty meek requirement: "You can still shoot unarmed civilians! But, if it doesn't look like that level of force was justified, you will get investigated and likely charged with a crime if you do it now." If that's unacceptable to some of them and they are so threatened that they quit...I mean, good?

I think of the cases where a civilian kills someone, like the guy who beat a rapist to death when he caught him molesting a girl, or the cases of successful self-defense using a firearm. The first thing that happens in each of those tales is....the killer goes to jail. They let the courts sort that shit out. Fuck, even in "Boondock Saints" they get arrested and held while the investigation wrapped up. So, when a cop shoots someone in the back, they expect to just go have a beer after work? The actual fuck?
For someone to be summarily executed by the state, it's at the end of a long process by which we ensure that death is justified. The death penalty isn't a light sentence in the courts for a reason: very few criminals deserve to die. Somehow, that logic doesn't apply to front-line cops? I call bullshit. This isn't Mega City One, they aren't Judge Dredd.

Over and over, case after case. Year after year. Corpse on top of corpse.

 

"Shot in the back." Yeah, that's an interesting way to put it. Maybe try shot in the back after stealing a weapon he easily could have turned around and fired at any moment. I wouldn't want to do a job that got me charged for murder here and neither would any of you.

I'm SURE any of you would assume in this situation that a violent belligerent drunk would definitely stop after using the taser. Great story.

This isn't holding people accountable, it's just being stupid.

 

Then let the court decide it. Luckily we have the best justice system in the world.

 

FFS, where was he shot then? The dude was shot in the back. While running away. That's literally what the guy who shot him said. How does a police report containing those exact words somehow become a divergent reality?

Also, is a taser a weapon? I thought that was a "non lethal" that was super ok for cops to use on civilians? Except when in someone else's hands, it's dangerous enough to justify lethal force? A taser is somehow so dangerous the act of wrestling it away from a cop and running away with it means he needs to be executed on the street? Not buying it. Certainly not when his partner is standing right there and the person carrying it is running away. It's not like he was standing there trying to use it against the officer or a bystander.

You can't really play the "coulda/woulda/shoulda" here because those rabbit holes end with things the cops should have done differently to avoid killing someone. Also, this isn't Minority Report, where the cops predict the future of what this dude was going to do. That's a ridiculous justification. He was running the fuck away. The cop pulled a gun and aimed at the man's back and fired. The first rule of firing a weapon is "know what you're aiming at", right? It's not somehow more acceptable to shoot someone based on what the cop believed they might have done.

It's embarrassing that a cop couldn't stop a drunk person running away without pulling his weapon, especially considering there were two of them.

And yeah, I wouldn't want a job that got me charged for murder either. Solution: don't shoot people. It's not like he's being charged for a cold case as a suspect. He shot someone in the back for no worse crime that assaulting an officer and running away, which if he was correctly prosecuted, at worst would be a few months in jail. Lethal injection isn't an option for those crimes, so why is getting shot in the back? How is that not an overreaction to the circumstances? Because he had a taser? Sounds like a conundrum the courts will solve by way of a trial, which is why the guy was charged.

Comparing the harm of this dude getting away or dying? I'd prefer him alive and I'd wager so would the city of Atlanta. Unless we're somehow arriving at the point that running from the cops is worthy of a street execution, Robocop-style, this dude shouldn't have died. This wasn't justice, this wasn't upholding the peace, this wasn't protection or service. This was homicide, for no real reason, perpetrated only because the guy had a badge and didn't think there would be consequences. Is there another circumstance where you can shoot someone in the back and not get charged with manslaughter? The presence of the badge should not mean there's no accountability for someone getting shot dead in the fucking street. FFS, it's Atlanta, not the OK Corral in 1868.

 

I don't think he had to die, but he literally turned and fired the taser at the cop. That's how you die, shooting at a cop. As to the taser being a weapon, the DA charged the cops who pulled the college kids out of their car and tased them with aggravated assault, which requires a deadly weapon, but in this case says it is non lethal...

Add to that, right or wrong, he followed the current guidelines. Change the guidelines or this is a "legal" shooting. I don't think it had to happen, I'm not sure I would have even chased him, they had his ID, they had his car, they had him on video failing the breathalyzer, and resisting arrest and attempting to shoot an officer with a taser he stole off of the officers belt. Which also means the officer couldn't hit him with the taser because he stole it.

I get ripping on the cops, it's super cool to do right now, but when they follow guidelines, weren't dicks to the guy, and guy still tries to get away, shoot them with a taser, I don't feel that bad for him. I still don't think he had to die, nor do I think he should have. Then again, he just won a Darwin award so he's got that going for him.

 

DND how the fuck do you know he isn't going to grab the cop's gun if he gets him with the taser? We already know he's a drunken lunatic who fought them and stole their weapon. Stop acting like we are starting at zero like we know nothing about this guy. We aren't.

 

Very fair point, I didn't know he did that. What I read said he got the taser, couldn't get it to work and took off running.

I stand corrected. If you point, aim and shoot something at a cop, even a cap gun, yeah...they shoot back.

I imagine this trial will be brief, then.

Thanks for pointing that out. Apologies, I was wrong.

 

See above, starting at "Minority Report". We don't know, and unfortunately, Officer Nostradamus wasn't on scene. I've never heard of "preventative lethal force" before, and I'm pretty sure I don't want cops whipping their guns out at things they think might happen. They reacted based on actual circumstances, and it was bad enough. I think that's a burden law enforcement carries, along the lines of "evidence": you can use probable cause to search someone, but you can't use it to shoot someone.

As it stands, I was misinformed anyway.

 

I'm not trying to claim the shooting was justified but people keep bringing up this whole I thought tasers weren't lethal thing and I can't help but think there is something to be said for while the taser may be considered non-lethal (and no, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on whether or not they themselves should be) but that allowing yourself to be incapacitated by a taser when dealing with an individual willing to fight two cops, steal a taser, and fire it upon an officer has a pretty good chance of turning into a lethal situation.

I mean, theoretically, the good guys taser someone and it stops the violent situation. The guy who just stole a taser from a cop incapacitated you with a taser and then what?

 

That's the point I was trying to make. If a guy is acting like he might he kill me I'm not going to wait and see if he does. Pick a fight with the cops, steal their weapon, and attack them with it means you lose benefit of the doubt.

After a certain point "let's see what he does" stops being a viable option.

 

fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

I was never a terribly big fan of Rogan, but his recent takes on COVID are extra retarded.

 

Bill Burr calling him out about wearing masks being for bitches was great.

 

I was honestly a little upset to hear him say that on his podcast. He has a very large listening audience and it was irresponsible of him to portray mask wearing as un-masculine.

 

That is a man who has the right to thumb his nose in the face of a LOT of people. The true dummies of society treat him like he’s the anti-Christ.

 

I didn't know I could cringe this hard.



I think I remember Chappelle making a point about how wrong this is right now. By all means though, if you are Chappelle, you go right ahead. If you're not, shut the fuck up.

 

What I don't understand is why the had to cuff the bloke in the first place, you fall asleep in a drive though then are woken up by cops, have a forty minute conversation in which you could have been put in a cab and sent home. Do people generally get jail time for being drunk if they haven't caused an accident?

Also I understand the pressure of the moment and all but for those that are saying he would have come back and taken the cops gun, his partner was next to him. For that to have happened is highly unlikely, also the distance he was at and the way he fired the taser it would have been a miracle for it to hit the cop let alone work properly. Unless tasers in the US work differently to the ones here in Aus both projectiles have to connect and there is an ideal seperation between the prongs otherwise it's likely not going to imobilise the person.

I do have one question for the masses though, I've seen reports that in some places 50% of the coucil budget goes towards police. Does anyone actually think that this is a correct use of public money?