No way. They will get convicted of something...anything...because the entire legal system will be scared to death of riots and chaos if they don't. They have 0% chance of getting a fair trial.
Prediction: Verdict. Appeal. Bonded out during Appeal. Reversal or vacated verdict. GBA reconsiders re-trial. Cop pleas out to Reckless Endangerment and keeps his Pension.
He won’t be convicted(well, maybe in Atlanta) but absolutely no reason to have shot the guy in the back running away. Should have shot in the leg. Or not at all.
Reform needs to happen in this case, like others, involving “deadly force”.
Things people say who have little to no firearms knowledge for $1000
That's exactly what my 13 year old kid said, telling.
Good God man, does your 13 yo know the difference in anatomy from a liver, lung shot vs a calf or debilitating injury non fatal from a gun shot wound if have to fire involving a fleeing suspect, especially under the current circumstances in the news, which should have no bearing at anytime??!
Hell, I’m on your side but fk, can’t see it common sense wise.
The point is, it’s hard enough to hit a moving target when you’re aiming center mass, now you’re saying to shoot him in an extremity. That shot will miss and will most likely take out a bystander. Always aim for the torso.
Snohomish County Precinct Commander told me "center torso" i.e., "kill zone" in 1985.
He won’t be convicted(well, maybe in Atlanta) but absolutely no reason to have shot the guy in the back running away. Should have shot in the leg. Or not at all.
Reform needs to happen in this case, like others, involving “deadly force”.
Things people say who have little to no firearms knowledge for $1000
That's exactly what my 13 year old kid said, telling.
Good God man, does your 13 yo know the difference in anatomy from a liver, lung shot vs a calf or debilitating injury non fatal from a gun shot wound if have to fire involving a fleeing suspect, especially under the current circumstances in the news, which should have no bearing at anytime??!
Hell, I’m on your side but fk, can’t see it common sense wise.
The point is, it’s hard enough to hit a moving target when you’re aiming center mass, now you’re saying to shoot him in an extremity. That shot will miss and will most likely take out a bystander. Always aim for the torso.
Snohomish County Precinct Commander told me "center torso" i.e., "kill zone" in 1985.
Legs, hands, guns? "Only on TV, Kid."
It's upper torso now. More stuff to damage which causes them to stop doing whatever they were doing to cause you to shoot them. We shoot to stop them not to kill them. If they die that's their problem and they caused it.
He won’t be convicted(well, maybe in Atlanta) but absolutely no reason to have shot the guy in the back running away. Should have shot in the leg. Or not at all.
Reform needs to happen in this case, like others, involving “deadly force”.
He didn't shoot the guy in the back. The guy turned and pointed the taser at him that he stole from the cop. If the cop gets hit with the taser the perp has free access to the cop's gun. The shooting was 100% correct.
He won’t be convicted(well, maybe in Atlanta) but absolutely no reason to have shot the guy in the back running away. Should have shot in the leg. Or not at all.
Reform needs to happen in this case, like others, involving “deadly force”.
He didn't shoot the guy in the back. The guy turned and pointed the taser at him that he stole from the cop. If the cop gets hit with the taser the perp has free access to the cop's gun. The shooting was 100% correct.
Recent news is that the cop was hit by the taser and suffered a concussion from the assault.
He won’t be convicted(well, maybe in Atlanta) but absolutely no reason to have shot the guy in the back running away. Should have shot in the leg. Or not at all.
Reform needs to happen in this case, like others, involving “deadly force”.
He didn't shoot the guy in the back. The guy turned and pointed the taser at him that he stole from the cop. If the cop gets hit with the taser the perp has free access to the cop's gun. The shooting was 100% correct.
Recent news is that the cop was hit by the taser and suffered a concussion from the assault.
The cop that suffered the concussion wasn't the cop who shot that family man that was just trying to turn his life around.
He won’t be convicted(well, maybe in Atlanta) but absolutely no reason to have shot the guy in the back running away. Should have shot in the leg. Or not at all.
Reform needs to happen in this case, like others, involving “deadly force”.
He didn't shoot the guy in the back. The guy turned and pointed the taser at him that he stole from the cop. If the cop gets hit with the taser the perp has free access to the cop's gun. The shooting was 100% correct.
Recent news is that the cop was hit by the taser and suffered a concussion from the assault.
The cop that suffered the concussion wasn't the cop who shot that family man that was just trying to turn his life around.
Comments
Cop unions are ferocious beasts.
Legs, hands, guns? "Only on TV, Kid."
The prosecutor charging police with pointing a taser at a suspect. Listen to his words. Then look at what he said regarding the police shooting.
Rayshard Brooks’ girl friend was a white supremacist?