Y'all are losing the law-and-order argument

i'm sure you will cite the statute to prove that, yeah? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I won't.. because you don't care anyway.

I won't.. because you don't care anyway. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Just admit you're too dumb to find it. Or is it too lazy?

you do know it is illegal to shoot someone armed with a taser, Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Have you ever been shot with a Tazer?

Chan, you really shouldn't be having sexual intercourse with females without birth control.

Have you ever been shot with a Tazer?

Chan, you really shouldn't be having sexual intercourse with females without birth control. Originally Posted by LexusLover

no I have not.. why do you ask?

no I have not.. why do you ask? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Just verifying your ignorance of the topic. At least research how many deaths have been by Tazers.

While you are educating yourself ... also look up pepper spray.

Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray ... ?

....and I'm talking LE strength not that shit on the counter with a key chain.

Both of those "less than lethal" weapons cause "serious bodily injury" and can cause death. As a consequence using either one on a LE officer is an aggravated assault on a peace officer and deadly force may be used by the police officer to defend himself and prevent escape by the actor using the deadly force against the police officer in order to protect third-parties.

In this particular instance it appears as the person with the Tazer was fleeing he was also pointing it back at the officer which would authorize the officer to defend himself by shooting the guy. But you're excused because of your ignorance. Carry on.

Just verifying your ignorance of the topic. At least research how many deaths have been by Tazers.

While you are educating yourself ... also look up pepper spray.

Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray ... ?

....and I'm talking LE strength not that shit on the counter with a key chain.

Both of those "less than lethal" weapons cause "serious bodily injury" and can cause death. As a consequence using either one on a LE officer is an aggravated assault on a peace officer and deadly force may be used by the police officer to defend himself and prevent escape by the actor using the deadly force against the police officer in order to protect third-parties.

In this particular instance it appears as the person with the Tazer was fleeing he was also pointing it back at the officer which would authorize the officer to defend himself by shooting the guy. But you're excused because of your ignorance. Carry on. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It still amazes me how blithely Mr. Tran dismisses someone who is drunk behind the wheel of a lethal weapon and when confronted fights with police officers, takes one of their weapons and runs off while still provoking potential attacks on the officers.

And then has the nerve to try and pretend the officers had his death planned from the outset or then just shot him out of spite. Truly delusional.

And other than just leave the guy totally alone as a nuisance only, he won't discuss how the situation should have been handled.

Let CT move to CHAZ in Washington state and find out how wonderful it is to live in a community which has been stolen by anarchist -terrorists with Ak's - who then extort the lawful residents for "taxes" and demand city services, food, and ancillaries for free Who set up barriers and patrol just like borders - and give the lawful residents no rights whatsoever.



find out what happens if a person disobeys the socialist totalitarian "code " - discipline at the pointy end of an Ak.
Liberals - no common sense at all.

They deserve to live in Venezuela under Maduro and learn what their marixst socialism is in reality.

he's already fired.. Georgia law says you can't shoot a man in the back, even if he just took your taser.

I think the Cops were embarrassed that they couldn't subdue him.. take that! bang! bang! Originally Posted by Chung Tran

If he can get a good lawyer he can get his job back. Firing Cops has become a formality right now when ever a Black guy gets killed. Pretty soon Cops aren't going to do shit. Citizens better get ready to handle their own problems without involving the Police.

It still amazes me how blithely Mr. Tran dismisses someone who is drunk behind the wheel of a lethal weapon ...... Originally Posted by eccielover

Chan is part of the problem in this country. Not any solution.

The sad part about his bullshit is he can talk shit like he does BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Officer's bodycam footage released. They did everything by the book. Shows suspect assaulting police officers, failing sobriety test, stealing taser, pointing taser at officers.

BLM, Antifa, the DNC and XiNN has blood on their hands.

#StopTheResistance

CT- if you do not want a Rule of Law under the Constitution - please vote DPST - for their :Justice" by Mob rule.

If You cannot see it, and how the LSM manipulates and hypes every isolated event - if You believe that all Cops are Chauvin - Types and live to shoot or strangle innocent bystanders at will , and the answer is defund and disarm the police

Vote DPST!!

Vote Your conscience - but when it does not turn out as You desire - with mobs taking and burning your Home and property - remember - when seconds Matter - call Police. Originally Posted by oeb11

he's to stupid to know the different's look at the communist avatar he uses

If he can get a good lawyer he can get his job back. Firing Cops has become a formality right now when ever a Black guy gets killed. Pretty soon Cops aren't going to do shit. Citizens better get ready to handle their own problems without involving the Police. Originally Posted by Levianon17

If someone gets past the security and the dogs, calling the cops is an exercise in futility. At that point, calling the coroner would be necessary.

"Let me count the ways". I told myself I wasn't going to waste my time arguing with Tran but here goes.


Just how many things did CT say that were wrong? Let's start with the obvious.


Y'all are losing the law and order argument


That would require a poll to substantiate that statement. Did CT offer a poll? Nope. But after asking "do most Americans still say we need police" I get.


https://today.yougov.com/topics/poli...m-america-poll

Close to two-thirds (65%) oppose cutting police force funding. Just 16 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans support that idea.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/64-a...ry?id=71202300

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

Most Americans concede some form of "reform" is necessary but they do not believe defunding, abolishing police is the answer. So support for law and order is not a losing argument, it is in fact a winning argument and the more looting and burning and killing cops, the law and order argument will get stronger. The fear of the animals is far greater than the fear of the police.




y'all will blame Antifa, BLM, and the "Socialists" once again.


Who else is to blame for the looting and arson, both crimes whether one considers them violent or not and while I won't take the time to poll how many Americans see arson and beating innocent shop owners as violent, I guarantee you they think arson and beating people up while you loot, is violence. The police are not the blame for criminals committing criminal acts in the real world.



What I find amusing is that the left says that destroying property even by arson is not violence because property can be replaced, a new definition of violence is emerging from the left "Silence is violence". How about that folks? Arson isn't violence but silence is. Orwell would be so pleased.


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/life/article/Speaking-up-against-racism-speaks-volumes-15319893.php



'Silence is violence'



you keep giving the Protesters ammunition


I would argue, you keep giving Trump and his supporters ammunition because if this race comes down to who do most Americans think can keep them safe while Democrats are rooting on the arson. looting and beating up innocent people for a pair of Nike's, Trump wins. The worse it gets, the better it gets for Trump.



Brooks was asleep in a Fucking Wendy's drive-through lane. they woke him up to kill him.


A complete mis-representation of what happened and an example of the kind of fake news Trump always refers to. Why not simply lay out all the facts as to what happened and let the reader judge? What is left out of that sentence is the resisting arrest, clearly visible "this time" always the leading cause of somebody being shot and the equally visible person pointing a Taser at the officer, what the Mayor and Chief of Police recently said was a lethal force weapon. Bet they wish now they hadn't said that because they might be forced to repeat those words in a court of law where I doubt this cop will ever see the inside of after the GBI finishes their investigation and finds a reasonable response to lethal forced being aimed at the officer.



the way they pounced on him.


Another fact mis-represented. The "pounced" on him when he refused to be handcuffed. Watching his lawyers defend his actions, they said that he had the right to question why he was being put in cuffs. Sure he did but you can't refuse to be put in cuffs. The place to argue whether you should have been put in cuffs, is in a court of law, not on the street. The lawyer says it is only naturally to "flinch" as he put his hands behind his back and turned his head back as to ask "why are you arresting me". There is no law, no right to refuse arrest. If you think there is, please post it but then that question has already been asked of you and you wouldn't/ couldn't answer, always the way of the coward.


This is how 99% ( a guess ) suspects end up on the ground, resisting arrest. The lawyers went as far as saying if he had been shot during the fight, it might be understandable, as if they would ever admit that if that had happened but admitted that the suspect was fighting the police which is clearly seen on the video. What do you think is going to happen if you fight the police? Want to quote a law that says you have a right to fight the police and take a weapon from them only to point it at them while attempting to flee a lawful arrest?



and arrest him for what? for being a public drunk?


https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...20loud%2C%20or


2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-41 - Public drunkenness

O.C.G.A. 16-11-41 (2010)
16-11-41. Public drunkenness




Public intoxication in Georgia is treated as a class B misdemeanor, which is a much more serious crime than it sounds on the surface. While a misdemeanor is considered a relatively minor offense, the penalties and potential consequences of a conviction can be severe. If found guilty of this crime, you could be asked to pay up to $1,000 in fines and spend up to one year in jail.



an alternative method for handling minor nuisances never crossed your mind.. it has to be police.


OK, what is this "method"? Who should be called and would this person have the power to arrest if arrest became necessary say like an absolute violation of law or will deciding which laws will be enforced and which laws won't be, be up to this "alternative" individual.


This may be your biggest problem CT and that's saying a lot since you have so many. You make statements that you can not defend. When you can't defend what you have said because more often than not it is too stupid to defend, you'll tell us that you don't have the time to "look it up" or make your case. You are simply repeating what you are hearing others on the Left say and they too can't articulate this alternative and answer the questions I just asked.



I said transfer some police duties to others.. any thinking person knows police are saddled with way too much responsibilities.


I'll ask again. Who should have gotten the call of somebody passed out drunk at a Wendy's drive thru? What happens if somebody with a clip board shows up and the person is armed? Then you call the police? So now you have a possibly shot dead social worker on the scene and now you need the "real police". Who is going to be sued for sending an un-armed social worker to deal with a suspect with a weapon? OH, you didn't know the suspect had a weapon! Exactly, that's why you send a cop with a gun.



they simply put a bullet in your back as you run away.


I call this the Michael Brown effect. No matter what really happened, say either that he was shot in the back even if video evidence says otherwise, doesn't matter because a lie is as good as the truth if you can get people to believe and repeat it as CT just did or he had his hands up and was "executed". Neither was true in the Michael Brown case as the Eric Holder Dept. of Justice was forced to admit. Doesn't matter, "hands up don't shoot" is still the motto of BLM even though it never happened.



The video I saw shows the man turning to fire the Taser at the cop so he wasn't shot in the back. I think you also admit this latter in your posting contradicting yourself but it simply doesn't matter to you.



resist arrest? Motherfucker was passed out drunk.. arrest him for being a drunk?


Does it look like he was passed out drunk when they tried to put handcuffs on him? Again, you make shit up that anybody can see is not the truth but you simply don't care.


He fought with police, passed out drunks do not fight with police.


And yes, the law that police are sworn to uphold, calls for public drunkenness combined with resisting arrest for that public drunkenness, to be put under arrest. It is the job of the DA to decide if he or she wants to prosecute. It is not up to the police to decide who goes free and who gets arrested.



if he went willingly, you have a drunk in jail, costing us money


Then what do you do with him? Baby sit him until some responsible adult comes to get him tying up the police which could cost lives if they can't leave to answer a call and this guy drives away drunk killing somebody? Put him in a taxi and pay the fare costing us money? Please, tell us what you would do instead of what you wouldn't do.



please.. why didn't the Officer who shot, use his taser first?


Because "maybe" the suspect took the Taser from the cop ( he took it from one of them ) that fired and the only weapon he had was his revolver. It has already been mentioned that if the suspect had been successful at firing the Taser at the officer and incapacitating him, the suspect could retrieve the gun and use it on the cop. That is why a cop sometimes has to shot an other wise unarmed suspect like Michael Brown for example. A cop is authorized to use deadly force in order not to be overwhelmed by a suspect and losing his weapon. If a 320 pound 6'3" suspect is coming at a 5'4" 130 lb female cop she should holster her weapon because the suspect doesn't have a weapon, only his size and weight? Please.




you do know it is illegal to shoot someone armed with a taser, in Georgia, right?


My first thought was "I wonder if he looked that up before he said it". Then I remembered who said it.



Georgia law says you can't shoot a man in the back, even if he just took your taser.


Again, you don't substantiate your claim and again you say he was shot in the back when he was shot after turning towards the cop with the Taser but facts, who needs facts, right CT?


Here is the Catch -22 any prosecutor of the cop will face.


https://www.shouselaw.com/tasers.html

Tasers and stun guns burst onto the law enforcement scene in the 1990's. They are sometimes billed as "nonlethal" alternatives to firearms. But in fact, tasers and stun guns are very serious and even lethal weapons. Over 350 people in the United States have died after contact with tasers since 1991.
If you or a loved one have been unreasonably tased by police officers or jail or prison guards, you might have a legal case for police brutality and excessive force.

You can't have it both ways. Either a Taser used by a cop or civilian against a cop is a lethal weapon or it isn't. If it is a lethal weapon as this attorney and the Mayor and Chief of Police in Atlanta have already said it is, then the cop can use a "justifiable use of force" argument and IMHO, prevail in court. Imagine the cop winning this case and again Atlanta and other places in the country burn because some people can't accept that the law works for the cop as well as the civilian.

HF - Thank you for an erudite and very well done discussion of the flaws of the Lib-DPST histrionics.



I might re-iterate - and request CT to produce the Georgia statutes he tried to slip in - and which to my knowledge -do NOT EXIST!!!

From CT and HF" you do know it is illegal to shoot someone armed with a taser, in Georgia, right?


My first thought was "I wonder if he looked that up before he said it". Then I remembered who said it.



Georgia law says you can't shoot a man in the back, even if he just took your taser.


Again, you don't substantiate your claim and again you say he was shot in the back when he was shot after turning towards the cop with the Taser but facts, who needs facts, right CT?


If any support that statutes exist substantiating the CT claims above - Please produce the Georgia statutes.



Lib DPST's are not known for their "sticking to the FACTS and Truth" - - and CT has been caught out with several flat out untruths lately.

They just don't seem to understand that because they "Want it" - does not mean it is factual truth . They write Lies and nonsense and expect it to be passed over uncritically - but uncritical thught process is a Lib-DPST characteristic - they have their Koolaid and narrative. Chariman Mao would be so proud of them.

I won't.. because I don't care anyway. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I produce the expected response to the request for the quoted Georgia statutes.