Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody

[Gyfts]

New police shooting happened recently in Atlanta that has people upset. The officer involved shooting has occurred at a Wendy's when a black male, Rayshard Brooks, 27, fell asleep in the drive through. Two officers conducted a DUI field sobriety test and determined he was intoxicated and tried to arrest him. Brooks resisted arrest, assaulted one of the officers then took the officer's taser. As Brooks was running, he turned around and fired the taser and an officer opened fire on Brooks killing him.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/protesters-block-lanes-on-i-85-wendys-set-on-fire-after-killing-of-rayshard-brooks

Per usual, the Wendy's location was set on fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osqCKSUfpOI

Protesters also blocked an interstate.

The Mayor of Atlanta has called for the termination of the officer who fired the shots and he's been fired from the Atlanta Police Department. His partner is on administrative duties.

I guess asking someone to not drive while drunk, resist arrest, assault a police officer, steal his taser, fire the taser at the officer, is too much. The district attorney's office is going to find the shooting legally justified but the officer got fired strictly for PR.

[1714889641]

1714889641

[1714889641]

1714889641

[1714889641]

1714889641

[1714889641]

1714889641

[Tash]

It seems the world is heading towards private citadel communities, decentralizing. Same way as in the old days castles.
This town in Mexico kicked out all politicians and police and private citizen take over security.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrPBdLiqMb0

[TECSHARE]

I guess asking someone to not drive while drunk, resist arrest, assault a police officer, steal his taser, fire the taser at the officer, is too much. The district attorney's office is going to find the shooting legally justified but the officer got fired strictly for PR.

He was shot in the back while running away. The cop's life was in no way endangered. If the shooting is found to be legally justified then it will be highlighting one of the main problems with law enforcement.

Police officers are armed. He had a tazer. If he hit an officer with a tazer he could have armed himself. That is a direct threat. This kind of incident is exactly why fucksticks like you get no respect, because you defend violent criminals. If he was an innocent victim everyone would be in agreement, but he wasn't. He was a violent drunk idiot who got HIMSELF shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnRuWcgflaE

[PopoJeff]

I guess asking someone to not drive while drunk, resist arrest, assault a police officer, steal his taser, fire the taser at the officer, is too much. The district attorney's office is going to find the shooting legally justified but the officer got fired strictly for PR.

He was shot in the back while running away. The cop's life was in no way endangered. If the shooting is found to be legally justified then it will be highlighting one of the main problems with law enforcement.

   Your problem is not with Law Enforcement, it's with the law. Every state had this thing called laws. Somewhere within it, you'll find a section detailing deadly force and when its justified to use.   Then every Police dept has something they call Policy, or SOP's, or General Orders.   That book will also details when deadly force can and can't be used by police.  
   Most of them are quite similar from department to department, state to state.  If if you ever read one of these books, you'll find a phrase called "fleeing forcible felon" or "violent fleeing felon."  

    Resisting arrest is a felony.   Assaulting cops is a felony.  Disarming an Officer is a felony. Stealing an officer's taser is a felony. Pointing the stolen taser at an officer is a felony. Firing a taser at an Officer is a felony.  
    Assaulting officers is violence.  The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
  
   This is just another criminal who escalated a simple interaction into multiple felonies, and his own death.  

  Instead of "more training" or "police reform"...... maybe the public needs some training on resisting arrest..



   No one seems to mention, that every time the police have to use force on someone, it's because that someone resists, fights, or attacks the cops.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

 

[Spendulus]

Police officers are armed. He had a tazer. If he hit an officer with a tazer he could have armed himself. That is a direct threat. This kind of incident is exactly why fucksticks like you get no respect, because you defend violent criminals. If he was an innocent victim everyone would be in agreement, but he wasn't. He was a violent drunk idiot who got HIMSELF shot.

I can somehow learn to live without garnering your respect, but really man, you have to stop crying in public. Its embarrassing.

Like I said before, the man was shot while running away. The police officer being aimed at with the taser had backup. Lethal force was totally uncalled for in this situation.

Statist authoritymongers are gonna toady for the state though, can't stop that.

Regardless of your feelings on this particular incident, if violent drunk/jacked up individuals have 100 run ins with police some are going to escalate to shootings.

At the same time, there's always been a hint of "maybe something's wrong here" on the topic of shooting people in the back.

[GeorgeJohn]

See to have riot over dead soul is good but depends on the persons crime, the death of George Floyd by a police I suspected that may be George had issues with one of the officers previously before the incident that lead's to his death.
Because police can't because you are a stranger to their country them kill a living soul without a proper investigation.
I suggested that while police have to act in that capacity is because George resisted arrests.
We have to protest over George Floyd death to verify the objectives of police not arrest him peaceful.
Those police officers involved in the death of George floyd suppose to face panel so that other police officers across the country will take precaution.

[Spendulus]

....
Statist authoritymongers are gonna toady for the state though, can't stop that.

Almost always we see "statist authority mongers" as being the current version of the "liberal", a totalitarian toad born of wrecked ideals of freedom and liberty.

So there's room left for some right wing "statist authority mongers?"

[coins4commies]

Yeah a statistic that is skewed by racism and then used as an argument against the existence of racism is definitely a "racist statistic".

Its funny how the analogy to your privileged POV is reference to another privileged POV.  Instead of stopping mcdonalds from marketing and selling harmful, addictive foods, you blame the victim.   Try looking at the fabric of the systems that cause problems instead of the symptoms of those poorly designed systems.  

Your head is so far up your ass there is really no point engaging in any kind of logical discussion with you. Any facts you don't like you just imagineer some Postmodernist excuse to dismiss and substitute your own reality. You would cut out your own eye if it dared rest upon the truth.

 Hey PopoJeff, you know this guy claims to be a professor? How scary is that? You aren't qualified to be a professor at clown college.

Is Cornell West qualified?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOP-GmkyzY
The thing about education is that you can't recognize it if you haven't had it so the educated perspective comes off as "an alternate reality"

Here's an interesting perspective, if your are open-minded enough to look at something from somewhere other than a pre-conceived opinion.


Does America have a “racist cop” problem?

It’s easy to believe so when watching the disturbing videos of the deaths of George Floyd, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice at the hands of the police. But do horrific, high-profile cases like these accurately reflect the treatment of black Americans by the police?

Many observers say no.

Since 2015, The Washington Post has maintained a comprehensive database of fatal police shootings. The Post database shows that fatal shootings by police have run steadily at around 1,000 per year since 2015: 995 (2015); 963 (2016); 987 (2017); 998 (2018); and 1,004 (2019).

About twice as many white people as black people are killed by police. “In fact, in about 75 percent of police shootings, the decedent is not black,” says Andrew McCarthy, a columnist with the National Review.

“This pandemic of civil violence is more widespread than anything seen during the Black Lives Matter movement of the Obama years, and it will likely have an even deadlier toll on law enforcement officers than the targeted assassinations we saw from 2014 onward,” McCarthy wrote. “It’s worse this time because the country has absorbed another five years of academically inspired racial victimology.”

While the current national narrative is that black Americans are, as some Black Lives Matter advocates claim, being “targeted” by police, Rafael Mangual, deputy director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, says that view is backward.

“It is certainly fair to say that police have had a target on their backs for some time,” he told InsideSources.

“I believe the number is that police officers are eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by black males than unarmed black males are to be killed by police officers,” he said. “And studies have shown that the odds of a black man being killed in police custody are about one in 1,000.

https://www.houmatoday.com/opinion/20200610/opinion-black-lives-matter-rhetoric-doesnt-match-facts-on-police-violence



So, is it the police that need the ambiguous talking point "more training" ?    Or does society need "more training"?   A simple 20 min PowerPoint presentation in free public school about law? A very simple understanding of.... don't fight police, attack police, or resist arrest, and your odds of being hurt by police are less than being struck by lightning.

You can't just blindly look at statistics without understanding why they are the way they are.  You need to zoom in and have a qualitative understanding to go with statistics.   You are ignoring a lot of the "whys" and only looking at the "whats"

Why are police being killed?

Why is there so much crime in some areas?

You will start to realize that despite massive amounts of policing, the areas with the most policing still have the highest crime.  If you arrest 1000 black people and kill one, the kill rate is low because you are arresting way too many people many of whom did nothing violent.  Now your rate of murdering black people looks better for a bad reason.  

Police, along with the justice and prison systems are manufacturing criminality.  We oppose training the public to respect police because
 this is not a supposed to be a police state.  Police need to serve their community by learning how to interact with them. Not the other way around.   We need to scale back the police big time and put most of  that money into things that will make society better.  

-Counseling
-Rehabilitation
-Jobs training
-Community programs
-Mental health response teams
-Therapists
-education

[PopoJeff]

Yeah a statistic that is skewed by racism and then used as an argument against the existence of racism is definitely a "racist statistic".

Its funny how the analogy to your privileged POV is reference to another privileged POV.  Instead of stopping mcdonalds from marketing and selling harmful, addictive foods, you blame the victim.   Try looking at the fabric of the systems that cause problems instead of the symptoms of those poorly designed systems.  

Your head is so far up your ass there is really no point engaging in any kind of logical discussion with you. Any facts you don't like you just imagineer some Postmodernist excuse to dismiss and substitute your own reality. You would cut out your own eye if it dared rest upon the truth.

 Hey PopoJeff, you know this guy claims to be a professor? How scary is that? You aren't qualified to be a professor at clown college.

Is Cornell West qualified?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOP-GmkyzY
The thing about education is that you can't recognize it if you haven't had it so the educated perspective comes off as "an alternate reality"

Here's an interesting perspective, if your are open-minded enough to look at something from somewhere other than a pre-conceived opinion.


Does America have a “racist cop” problem?

It’s easy to believe so when watching the disturbing videos of the deaths of George Floyd, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice at the hands of the police. But do horrific, high-profile cases like these accurately reflect the treatment of black Americans by the police?

Many observers say no.

Since 2015, The Washington Post has maintained a comprehensive database of fatal police shootings. The Post database shows that fatal shootings by police have run steadily at around 1,000 per year since 2015: 995 (2015); 963 (2016); 987 (2017); 998 (2018); and 1,004 (2019).

About twice as many white people as black people are killed by police. “In fact, in about 75 percent of police shootings, the decedent is not black,” says Andrew McCarthy, a columnist with the National Review.

“This pandemic of civil violence is more widespread than anything seen during the Black Lives Matter movement of the Obama years, and it will likely have an even deadlier toll on law enforcement officers than the targeted assassinations we saw from 2014 onward,” McCarthy wrote. “It’s worse this time because the country has absorbed another five years of academically inspired racial victimology.”

While the current national narrative is that black Americans are, as some Black Lives Matter advocates claim, being “targeted” by police, Rafael Mangual, deputy director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, says that view is backward.

“It is certainly fair to say that police have had a target on their backs for some time,” he told InsideSources.

“I believe the number is that police officers are eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by black males than unarmed black males are to be killed by police officers,” he said. “And studies have shown that the odds of a black man being killed in police custody are about one in 1,000.

https://www.houmatoday.com/opinion/20200610/opinion-black-lives-matter-rhetoric-doesnt-match-facts-on-police-violence



So, is it the police that need the ambiguous talking point "more training" ?    Or does society need "more training"?   A simple 20 min PowerPoint presentation in free public school about law? A very simple understanding of.... don't fight police, attack police, or resist arrest, and your odds of being hurt by police are less than being struck by lightning.

You can't just blindly look at statistics without understanding why they are the way they are.  You need to zoom in and have a qualitative understanding to go with statistics.   You are ignoring a lot of the "whys" and only looking at the "whats"

Why are police being killed?

Why is there so much crime in some areas?

You will start to realize that despite massive amounts of policing, the areas with the most policing still have the highest crime.  If you arrest 1000 black people and kill one, the kill rate is low because you are arresting way too many people many of whom did nothing violent.  Now your rate of murdering black people looks better for a bad reason.  

Police, along with the justice and prison systems are manufacturing criminality.  We oppose training the public to respect police because
 this is not a supposed to be a police state.  Police need to serve their community by learning how to interact with them. Not the other way around.   We need to scale back the police big time and put most of  that money into things that will make society better.  

-Counseling
-Rehabilitation
-Jobs training
-Community programs
-Mental health response teams
-Therapists
-education

That's cute.  Really really a cute idea.  Right out of a leftist politician playbook. However, it lack's one important factor...... TRUTH.
It's really an empty opinion to think police and "the system" are "manufacturing criminality."    Spend one friggin hour with any police department and you'll see they don't spend their time picking out who they want to arrest.
    You can pull up any department's UCR data and annual report. You'll find out the largest portion of police interaction and arrests stem from someone CALLING the cops.  It wasn't the cop's choice to go somewhere and dig up some BS charge, the cop's get called to a crime in progress.
  
   And the other contradictory issue is "respecting the police".   No, no ones looking for you to respect a particular person, but a civilized society expects you to respect their established LAWS.  When you don't respect the established LAWS, then you end up having to deal with the police.

  You are also ignoring a WHY.  You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime.  WHY?  Which came first, the crime or the police response?   The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime."   The actual inverse happens.  Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops.  Policing is REACTIVE in nature.

[PrimeNumber7]

I guess asking someone to not drive while drunk, resist arrest, assault a police officer, steal his taser, fire the taser at the officer, is too much. The district attorney's office is going to find the shooting legally justified but the officer got fired strictly for PR.

He was shot in the back while running away. The cop's life was in no way endangered. If the shooting is found to be legally justified then it will be highlighting one of the main problems with law enforcement.

He was not running away. He turned towards the police office, pointed the tazer towards the officer and either shot the tazer or was indicating he was about to shoot the tazer. The tazer would have incapacitated the officer, and the person would have been able to take the officer's gun.

The use of force was 100% justified. Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or dishonest.

[BADecker]

Here is the answer to the riots. Listen to the answer right after the bearded, masked guy goes off-screen.

MUST SEE: It’s Not About RACE, or LEFT or RIGHT! It’s About YOU And ME VS THE STATE!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLW38Gvqv44#t=420s

[KingScorpio]

Here is the answer to the riots. Listen to the answer right after the bearded, masked guy goes off-screen.

MUST SEE: It’s Not About RACE, or LEFT or RIGHT! It’s About YOU And ME VS THE STATE!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLW38Gvqv44#t=420s

why are these people so crazy, the state is an achievement of generations, no crazy leftists are trying to destroy it so they can live medieval in starvation again.

[KingScorpio]

I guess asking someone to not drive while drunk, resist arrest, assault a police officer, steal his taser, fire the taser at the officer, is too much. The district attorney's office is going to find the shooting legally justified but the officer got fired strictly for PR.

He was shot in the back while running away. The cop's life was in no way endangered. If the shooting is found to be legally justified then it will be highlighting one of the main problems with law enforcement.

He was not running away. He turned towards the police office, pointed the tazer towards the officer and either shot the tazer or was indicating he was about to shoot the tazer. The tazer would have incapacitated the officer, and the person would have been able to take the officer's gun.

The use of force was 100% justified. Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or dishonest.

exactly and also there was no certainty he might have had a gun somewhere.

[Gyfts]

exactly and also there was no certainty he might have had a gun somewhere.

The body cam footage of the responding officers was released. The man was patted down for weapons and he didn't have anything on him. This does not mean the guy was not a threat because he could have incapacitated an officer with that taser and either stole his gun or cause other harm.

Raw body cam video of incident - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-FVrZio2-8

  Your problem is not with Law Enforcement, it's with the law. Every state had this thing called laws. Somewhere within it, you'll find a section detailing deadly force and when its justified to use.   Then every Police dept has something they call Policy, or SOP's, or General Orders.   That book will also details when deadly force can and can't be used by police.  
   Most of them are quite similar from department to department, state to state.  If if you ever read one of these books, you'll find a phrase called "fleeing forcible felon" or "violent fleeing felon."  

    Resisting arrest is a felony.   Assaulting cops is a felony.  Disarming an Officer is a felony. Stealing an officer's taser is a felony. Pointing the stolen taser at an officer is a felony. Firing a taser at an Officer is a felony.  
    Assaulting officers is violence.  The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
  
   This is just another criminal who escalated a simple interaction into multiple felonies, and his own death.  

  Instead of "more training" or "police reform"...... maybe the public needs some training on resisting arrest..



   No one seems to mention, that every time the police have to use force on someone, it's because that someone resists, fights, or attacks the cops.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

 

Tennessee v. Garner would get the officer who fired shots off the hook but even below that any Georgia statute that outlines self defense would work too. A taser is a less than lethal, but not a non-lethal weapon, and the moment you steal that taser from an officer, it outlines a case for an officer to use deadly force. Considering the fact the suspect actually fired off the taser, self defense is a valid reason for the shot. It certainly doesn't help that the guy committed multiple felonies by resisting and obstructing. The Georgia DA's office is looking to have a decision out midweek on whether or not to file charges but the officer involved was already fired.

[TECSHARE]

I can somehow learn to live without garnering your respect, but really man, you have to stop crying in public. Its embarrassing.

Like I said before, the man was shot while running away. The police officer being aimed at with the taser had backup. Lethal force was totally uncalled for in this situation.

Statist authoritymongers are gonna toady for the state though, can't stop that.

Not just me, anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. Could you possibly project your delusions any harder? Lethal force was ABSOLUTELY called for. Statist authoritymonger. That's funny. Look what else I found comtard:



How does it feel praising the innocence a child beater?

[KingScorpio]

islamic extremists could now easily attack the us, by sending the black skinned suicide bombers into the us to piss of the police to achieve suicide by cop, each time crazy and racist BLM then destroyes a bit more of america.

trump should point that out. to get rid of the panic everytime police kills a black offender.

[coins4commies]

That's cute.  Really really a cute idea.  Right out of a leftist politician playbook. However, it lack's one important factor...... TRUTH.
It's really an empty opinion to think police and "the system" are "manufacturing criminality."    Spend one friggin hour with any police department and you'll see they don't spend their time picking out who they want to arrest.
    You can pull up any department's UCR data and annual report. You'll find out the largest portion of police interaction and arrests stem from someone CALLING the cops.  It wasn't the cop's choice to go somewhere and dig up some BS charge, the cop's get called to a crime in progress.
  
   And the other contradictory issue is "respecting the police".   No, no ones looking for you to respect a particular person, but a civilized society expects you to respect their established LAWS.  When you don't respect the established LAWS, then you end up having to deal with the police.

  You are also ignoring a WHY.  You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime.  WHY?  Which came first, the crime or the police response?   The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime."   The actual inverse happens.  Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops.  Policing is REACTIVE in nature.

Its not that most cops are doing things out of line.  The main problem is that much of what police are supposed to do is already bad.  Police doing their jobs the way they should be done is manufacturing criminality.  Thats what ACAB is all about and theres a ton of truth to it.  

1. Look how many people are in prison on non-violent, drug offenses
2. Look at how many people who come out of prison reoffend.

 Drugs are a health issue and should not be criminalized anyway.  The police are the middle men in all of this. Grabbing people off the streets for "crimes" that are crime by law, putting these people into the system, and then they come out the other end hardened criminals.  

We will not blindly respect laws and will challenge them and the  people who are enforcing them if they are unjust.  These laws will not be respected because they are not enforced fairly.  You can look at discrepancies in sentencing by race for the same crimes and see huge discrepancies.  White people are doing most of the drugs while latinx and black people are being incarcerated at higher rates with lower use.  

You are also ignoring a WHY.  You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime.  WHY?  Which came first, the crime or the police response?   The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime."   The actual inverse happens.  Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops.  Policing is REACTIVE in nature.

The racism came first.
Slavery came first.
Jim Crow came first.  
Redlining came first.
War on drugs came first.

We are done with being reactive.  Its time to be proactive and thats why we will be defunding the police and replacing them with humane social services.  

[KingScorpio]

That's cute.  Really really a cute idea.  Right out of a leftist politician playbook. However, it lack's one important factor...... TRUTH.
It's really an empty opinion to think police and "the system" are "manufacturing criminality."    Spend one friggin hour with any police department and you'll see they don't spend their time picking out who they want to arrest.
    You can pull up any department's UCR data and annual report. You'll find out the largest portion of police interaction and arrests stem from someone CALLING the cops.  It wasn't the cop's choice to go somewhere and dig up some BS charge, the cop's get called to a crime in progress.
  
   And the other contradictory issue is "respecting the police".   No, no ones looking for you to respect a particular person, but a civilized society expects you to respect their established LAWS.  When you don't respect the established LAWS, then you end up having to deal with the police.

  You are also ignoring a WHY.  You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime.  WHY?  Which came first, the crime or the police response?   The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime."   The actual inverse happens.  Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops.  Policing is REACTIVE in nature.

Its not that most cops are doing things out of line.  The main problem is that much of what police are supposed to do is already bad.  Police doing their jobs the way they should be done is manufacturing criminality.  Thats what ACAB is all about and theres a ton of truth to it.  

1. Look how many people are in prison on non-violent, drug offenses
2. Look at how many people who come out of prison reoffend.

 Drugs are a health issue and should not be criminalized anyway.  The police are the middle men in all of this. Grabbing people off the streets for "crimes" that are crime by law, putting these people into the system, and then they come out the other end hardened criminals.  

We will not blindly respect laws and will challenge them and the  people who are enforcing them if they are unjust.  These laws will not be respected because they are not enforced fairly.  You can look at discrepancies in sentencing by race for the same crimes and see huge discrepancies.  White people are doing most of the drugs while latinx and black people are being incarcerated at higher rates with lower use.  

You are also ignoring a WHY.  You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime.  WHY?  Which came first, the crime or the police response?   The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime."   The actual inverse happens.  Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops.  Policing is REACTIVE in nature.

The racism came first.
Slavery came first.
Jim Crow came first.  
Redlining came first.
War on drugs came first.

We are done with being reactive.  Its time to be proactive and thats why we will be defunding the police and replacing them with humane social services.  

you are completely out of mind, you are opening a box of pandora, the us is not a homogeneus christian society, there will be countless savages trying to abuse your police free environment to creat terrorism hubs.

russians are not supposting your communist ideas, because you will only end up destroying the economy instead of developing it. secondly communism in the us will never work, because there are countless fighting groups that will undermine it. you would have to establish a fascist stalinist communism to get the economy work at all.

look at chaz what kind of shit it is.

[Mttewndew]

Do not forget that the backstage elites specifically give such reasons in order to push people together. Do not get fooled by this. We are all one!

[Gyfts]

None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.

If he was a deadly threat to others, why under Tennessee vs. Garner wouldn't the officers have the legal authority to shoot Brooks? I'd argue he was a potentially deadly threat to officers primarily, then bystanders.