Crime Another police shooting in Atlanta.

Letting him run off or shooting him in the back were the only options, is that right?

we can't create a culture where police are only allowed to use deadly force back after they are attacked

remember, these are split of the second decisions in the midst of a violent scurfelled

that law should be that if you attack a police officer with a weapon, your liable to be shot - period

I wonder what you would do if a large violent felon had tazed and was fighting with you in the split of a second - how much "lee way" you would give him
 
I hope the police officer gets acquitted

the DA seems to be for stripping the police officers of their immunity - what about stripping him of his immunity?

he should be sued for malicious prosecution without the safe guards of the states and the cops should take everything they have from him
 
we can't create a culture where police are only allowed to use deadly force back after they are attacked

remember, these are split of the second decisions in the midst of a violent scurfelled

that law should be that if you attack a police officer with a weapon, your liable to be shot - period

I wonder what you would do if a large violent felon had tazed and was fighting with you in the split of a second - how much "lee way" you would give him

Not to mention, do we really want to incentivize running from the cops? Like if you can kick their ass and take off, you win and get to go free?
 
No, that's not what I said.

The shooting is justified because the perp pointed the taser at the shooting officer's partner.

The kick afterward is distasteful, and along with the standing on the perp's shoulder and not administering medical aid for over two minutes I agree with the termination of both officers.

I have a weird feeling we are gonna find out this kick afterwards was kicking the stun gun out of his hand or some shit.
 
Sorry, but this is just not true. Regardless of whatever greater point you were trying to make, 'whites' absolutely are NOT "the most rigid, well organized, and violent gangs". In CA, where prison politics demand that people segregate, the Mexicans are overwhelmingly the most militant, well organized, disciplined gangs in CA prisons. Specifically, that would be the Northerners, followed by the Sureno cars.

Outside of CA, where prison politics aren't so serious, whites generally DON'T stick together, even when one of their own is being victimized. If you've ever seen the movie 'Shotcaller', I can tell you that what they showed in the beginning of the movie would never happen in CA - I'm talking about where the main character, a white guy, first enters prison and gets into a fistfight with a black guy on the yard in a CA state penitentiary. That is complete fiction because every single prisoner on that yard knows that if a member of one race is attacked, everyone must jump in and participate. Further, some CA yards have a 'no hands policy', meaning if you have beef with someone, you drop it unless it's worth killing them over. So everyone is strapped. For those reasons, in the real world, individual fights between races are virtually non-existent, other than sanctioned riots/hits. Great care is taken to bring in new guys and school them on the rules. The thinking is that if this new guy fucks up and he is a member of my race, it doesn't matter whether I know him or not, or what car he rolls with. If he does something stupid, and gets himself attacked, every single white guy on that compound must participate unless they want to be booked themselves by their own guys.

Going back to the statement you made, I believe I've corrected you on this before, which I'm pretty sure you ignored. You stated that the "Aryan Brotherhood" has more prison murders than any other gang, and this was your reasoning for saying that whites are the most militant, organized, and violent group in American prison. The only reason the AB had more murders on the books is because the Mexican Mafia were using them as contract killers. Make no mistake about it, the AB is subservient to the Mexican Mafia in CA and a few other Western states.



Again, from my direct first hand experience, you've got this all backwards.

In prison, whites are the only group that continually espouse racial supremacy. They dedicate their lives to it, rock swastikas, 1488's, etc., and have very sincere beliefs about segregated societies. I'd say about 50% of the peckerwood car (whites) take that shit very seriously. No other group spouts anything even remotely similar beyond just basic prison politics of sticking with your own kind for protection. Don't believe me? Go look at what the Aryan Brotherhood stands for and the imagery they blast all over themselves. Now go look at the big homies in the Mexican Mafia, the Bloods/Crips, MS, Latin Kings, etc. - none of their shit makes race a focal point like the whites make it.

You seem to misunderstand my point. The point that I'm making is that as an absolute minority, when forced to rely on "race sentiment" to survive, the whites can be as violent and intolerant as anybody. It's not as if the capacity to be violent is exclusive to any race in particular.

Prison conditions serve to prove this. It's just that the majority of the public no longer subscribes to such ideals.

The Mexican gangs might be more powerful and capable but I doubt that they are as rigid or strict when it comes to the inclusion of members, especially in regards to race. From the prison interviews that I've listened to, it seems that the whites especially had to subject themselves to a lot of rules. The race stuff makes up a lot of it.

I'm under no illusion that the white gangs are the most powerful, not did I ever make such a claim, just clearly, statistically the most violent. Whether they work as assassins or not, in any case their capacity for violence has been noted.

I tend to think that much of the Nazi stuff is just a matter of intimidation, you see that even in Russian prisons. It's the ultimate taboo in our societies so it makes sense that the criminal elements would embrace it.
 
Last edited:
So he had all of these options and he chose to shoot someone in the back.

Is that right?

I probably would have shot him also. I doubt I'd demand a game of tag if a guy shot a taz gun at me. But who knows
 
Haven’t confirmed myself but just heard an interview on the news and the guy said this same DA has just recently filed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charges against some other cops in an unrelated case...in regards to them using a taser on someone.

That would present a problem if he wants to argue that a taser is a deadly weapon in that case and then argue that a person using a taser on a cop isn’t a lethal force situation.
 
we can't create a culture where police are only allowed to use deadly force back after they are attacked

remember, these are split of the second decisions in the midst of a violent scurfelled

that law should be that if you attack a police officer with a weapon, your liable to be shot - period

I wonder what you would do if a large violent felon had tazed and was fighting with you in the split of a second - how much "lee way" you would give him
You have never been to police academy. They will not teach any of this.
 
You have never been to police academy. They will not teach any of this.
This gif was built for our time...

RPfyauC.gif
 
the district attorney said they were 18 ft apart when he shot him .. correct me if I'm wrong but they look much much closer than that from what I saw .. I think homeboy is trying to exaggerate a bit to enhance the charges lol
Did he mean to say 18 divided by 3?
 
Yep. Sadly, there will be riots after any acquittal or hung jury. This fucking DA is guaranteeing the future destruction of the city he is supposed to protect
Yep. But those kind of people don't think that far ahead, or give a shit if they do.
 
Haven’t confirmed myself but just heard an interview on the news and the guy said this same DA has just recently filed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charges against some other cops in an unrelated case...in regards to them using a taser on someone.

That would present a problem if he wants to argue that a taser is a deadly weapon in that case and then argue that a person using a taser on a cop isn’t a lethal force situation.
 
Back
Top