Sunday, June 14, 2020


UPDATE: Here is some footage of the shooting. It first shows the man violently resisting arrest. He takes the officer's taser and he flees. While he is being chased he turns and apparently fires the taser at the officer. We do not care that the police have previously taken the position that a taser is not deadly force. This is a violent attack on the officer and the shoot was justified. There are other videos showing the officers interacting with the man- investigating the DUI. They do nothing wrong and the man is cooperative until as they try to cuff him, he suddenly and violently responds. There is nothing wrong here other than a tragic loss of life because a drunk driver violently resisted arrest. 
Item: Atlanta police officers make a DUI arrest at a Wendys. The suspect resists arrest and disarms the officer of his taser- which is a very dangerous scenario. The suspect flees and is shot and killed and the officer is fired. And for good measure the protestors burn down the Wendys the next day.

Let's start with the Wendys. They had nothing to do with what occurred. Most likely the Wendys was owned by a franchisee. Why burn their business down? 

Now lets move on to the officer. Being disarmed of the taser creates a situation where the suspect could disable any officer by stunning them and then harm them further or disarm them of their firearm and kill them. This, in our opinion, allows any officer to use deadly force against such an individual. 

And yet the police chief of Atlanta resigned and the officer was fired. 

What are we missing? 


Anonymous said...

You are missing:

The guy was running away from the officer. There was no need to chase him (knowing that the defendant had the taser). Could have stayed out and let the guy run. Big fucking deal. This is where the mayor is right on, don't need to shoot just because you can.

Cops are trained to kill so that they don't risk their lives. It should be the other way around. They should only kill when their life is imminently in danger, not to win a fight or capture a fleeing subject (absent special circumstances like an active shooter or guy posing imminent threat to others).

Being a roofer or garbage man is more dangerous than being a cop, cops call themselves heros but live for an opportunity to show everybody how tough they are and how they can dominate the battle space. They need to be seriously retrained to actually put their lives at risk - meaning killing fewer people at risk to their personal safety - then I will call them heroic.

It takes a lot more guts not to shoot that guy than to blast away. We don't need trigger happy cowards running around with guns, just waiting for a chance to use them.

Anonymous said...

Two facts: the officer was white and the decedent black. Thats all that matters. Lucky rump you are not posting with your real name or the mob would be coming for you. Be careful you might get doxxed just for this post alone..stay in line or hold your tongue.

Anonymous said...

In a normal world this would be justified force. The cop is an idiot. We are no longer in a normal world. Should have let the guy get away with the taser, and just head back to the station. Seriously. Every cop across the usa should do the same...stand down and keep your job.

Anonymous said...

Better to kill then be mocked by your fellow officers in an unrelenting manner. This is taught in Blue Wall of Silence course 101:

Anonymous said...

"Let's start with the Wendys. They had nothing to do with what occurred. Most likely the Wendys was owned by a franchisee. Why burn their business down?"

Wendy's management probably called the cops in the first place because the person was parked in their parking lot and allegedly blocking the drive-thru. So the protesters figure that makes the business culpable for the police encounter and its escalation. And so it sends the message that if any person or business calls the police and the police encounter goes badly and gets bad press, then that person or business is guilty of racist privilege and oppression and will therefore be punished with vandalism, arson, and other "direct action." That will deter persons or businesses from calling the police in the future, and aid the goal of defunding and abolishing the police.

Also, Wendy's is a fast food corporate conglomerate mostly owned by white people and the franchisee who operated that particular restaurant is probably white too. So it's not considered some benign local business but some outpost of white imperialist capitalism invading black communities to exploit black people by selling them poisonous food that sickens and kills them.

Anonymous said...

You are 100% correct.

Taser International - the manufacturer - changed the packaging and warnings on it a few years ago to go from “NON LETHAL” to “LESS LETHAL.”

The defendant fought these officers and ran with the officer’s taser. When he turned at 15’ away from the officer - and engaged and actually pulled the Taser trigger - game over.

Anyone would be in enough fear to believe they were about to be killed. The use of deadly force is REASONABLE.

Let one of these bullshit CNN pundits or the plaintiff’s lawyers who held the press conference be in that position - and I guarantee they would not be “deescalating” and talking nice. They would shoot.

And to burn down a Wendy’s. I’m DISGUSTED with America. I wish there was a better country to live. But - there is not.

Sir Wilfred said...

He dead guy was shit I. The back running away from the cop, at least 30 feet away. Also he had been patted down and had no firearm to turn around and shot the cop from 30 feet, which the taser could not reach to the cops. They had his car and DL, so they could easily find him

A robed reader said...

1. The suspect had a taser, which police departments insisted is not a deadly weapon.
2. The officer was not alone. A single officer whose taser has been taken from him is in more danger of death or great bodily harm than an officer who has backup with him.
3. The man was running away. Even if a suspect with a taser is dangerous as you say, a suspect running away with a taser is not.

Now combine all three factors. An officer is chasing a suspect who is not threatening him with deadly force, the officer has a an armed backup officer, and the suspect is running away from the officer. Seems like a bad shoot.

Rumpole said...

What if the Wendy's was minority owned? Is the lesson here that a drunk person who is behind the wheel of a car- which makes him inherently dangerous if he decides to drive- can disrupt your business and shut it down and if you call the police you get your business burned down? This is wrong.

The issue of the officer shooting him in the back is more complicated. The man is dangerous by virtue of how he has disarmed the officer to begin with. But if he was shot in the back running away then the shoot is bad.

Anonymous said...

"What if the Wendy's was minority owned?"

Even if the franchise for this particular location was minority owned, it still uses the trademark and signage of a white corporation which uses a ginger girl as its mascot and the Wendy's corporation still profits from it.

"Is the lesson here that a drunk person who is behind the wheel of a car- which makes him inherently dangerous if he decides to drive- can disrupt your business and shut it down and if you call the police you get your business burned down?"

Yes, that is exactly the lesson. Are you just now understanding that?

Remember, calling the police on a black person is done from a position of racist privilege and constitutes oppression against black people.



Anyway, plenty of minority owned business were burned down to avenge George Floyd. Sensible "woke" business owners now openly praise the vandals who destroyed their life's work and say their businesses deserve to be burned on the altar of equality.




Anonymous said...


Police policy is to chase those evading arrest. A contrary policy, to let people suspected of dui and other low level offense to run, is stupid. It would lead to everyone running. If the mayor felt that was the appropriate policy, she should have told the officer that his job is to stand down. Cant wait for biden or some moron like you to roll out the "let them run" policy and see how that works. Yea im sorry ms. Victim of doemstic violence, we woulda loved to have arrested him, but he ran. We didnt want to chase on the off chance he might shoot at us, in which case we'd have to fire back. So if he comes back to kill you, give us a call!

Anonymous said...

Dear woke people,

It is actually okay to be white.

Have a nice day.

Robert Peel said...

Look boyos;

You can either govern your selves, or you can groan under the government’s boot. If you are choosing self-government, it helps to hire some trustworthy workers to catch the thieves. When I invented the idea of a police “force,” I knew there were some arseholes among us; we planned for this.

There are nine simple principals behind an ethical police force. We wrote them down in 1829; Edward Drummond did much of the draftsmanship. (Eddie was a splendid fellow, cut down too soon by a crazy Scottish wood turner. Rumple knows the facts of the matter in great detail. Sad story all around.) Every police action can be analyzed by my nine principals, either the action is ethically correct, or it is not. Only ethical police should be permitted to exist in a civilized society.

The applicable principal in this case is number Six. “6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.”

Now, take principle 6 and apply to your footpad snatching an armed copper’s nightstick and running off. Is it fair play to shoot a man in back as he runs away? Of course not. We could get your newfangled electrictronical nightstick back later in the week. Or, we could buy a new one, they sell for $19.67 at Wal*Mart; certainly a wiser choice than murdering a man.

Remember, your police are only folks paid do what any other person would do were they in the policeman’s situation. They are “an alternative to repression by military force;” not an occupying army themselves. Perhaps you’d start whipping them into shape by taking the guns away. What sort of message does it send when the officers of the law are armed to the teeth like desperadoes?

Anonymous said...


You think black people are too stupid to decide whether or not to eat at wendys?

Have you not had a frosty? It's delicious.

I bet you love them.

Anonymous said...

You are the problem, you sum up the events of the last few weeks and everything that is wrong right now.You are so IGNORANT.

Rumpole said...

I am not quite sure what you are up to 5:21. Which side of this you are on.

But let me say this.
It is not racist to call the police.
It is not ok for anyone to burn down anyone else's business.
It is not ok to be racist.
It is not ok for police to use excessive force on someone.
It is not ok to resist arrest.

We ask police officers to put their lives on the line and make split second decisions. Not the almost nine minutes the officer had his knee on George Floyd's neck. But the split second response when a fleeing felon turns around and fires at an officer? I am backing that officer's decision to use force.

Anonymous said...

"You think black people are too stupid to decide whether or not to eat at wendys?"

According to our intellectual and moral betters, black people are oppressed and brainwashed and made to rely upon mass market fast food through targeted advertising and because better nutritious food establishments are not available to them and avoid black neighborhoods.


"Have you not had a frosty? It's delicious."

Delicious, sure. Also high fat and high sugar so you can look forward to diabetes and amputated limbs.

Anonymous said...

"It is not racist to call the police."

Bunch of protesters, protest supporters, and woke people on CNN and NBC say it is and if you call the police and they end up killing a black man, then you're a "Karen" or some other racist murderer.

"It is not ok for anyone to burn down anyone else's business."

The arsonists and vandals are warriors for racial justice who destroy temples of racist capitalist oppression! And anyway, since the killing of black people by police is some kind of ongoing national crisis, it's been decreed that the burning of property and businesses is a trivial privileged pecuniary concern and white people complaining about it are racist.

"It is not ok to resist arrest."

But if you resist arrest for anything less than murder, the police aren't allowed to use any kind of force that could kill you. And if the police kill a black person and you suggest he should not have resisted arrest, you are also racist.

Anonymous said...

Let him run where? The guy was going to be arrested, in 10 minutes or 10 hours. Make the running a sentencing issue, not a death penalty.

Anonymous said...

1/2 of the racism doesn't get enough attention, the other half gets too much attention

Anonymous said...

"Why burn down your own neighborhood?" Are you getting a glimpse into why that is the stupidest of questions? Do you understand that that is not what's happening in Ferguson?

You loot because you don't care for these local businesses any more than they care about you. You burn them down to exact revenge for not having a fair chance in the richest country in the history of mankind. It's not your local store. It's not your country. Loyalty works both ways, and it doesn't work at all for most young black American males.

Let's be perfectly clear about this. What's being burned down in Ferguson tonight is not the homes of black families, it's the consumer stores that feed off the black families of this ghetto neighborhood. What's being methodically burned are the local businesses that pay the taxes to hire the racist white police who stop and frisk blacks in Feguson relentlessly right around the year, who take young black males to prison at six times the rate that they do with white offenders for the same crimes.

It's a stupid question because the answer is so obvious: to a young black male these stores are not in any sense "my neighborhood." These stores represent a crushing economic system set in place to hold you down and crush you in place. It's American consumer culture behind plate glass, with consumer goods lining the shelves, and you are not welcome in these stores even when you pay cash.

The hatred and distrust you feel when you enter these places is often palpable. You probably first felt the urge to hand some of that hatred back when you were still a boy. Now you're an uneducated, unemployed, and unemployable young black man with little hope of changing your circumstances -- not in a country with a real unemployment rate for young black men of over 50%. You'd actually be better off financially with forty raw acres and a mule out in Nebraska or Montana than trying to pick up honest odd jobs in run down segregated neighborhoods like Ferguson, MO.

But then, no. The good white folks of Nebraska and Montana don't want you around any more than these Ferguson merchants do. They'll accept your money, sure, but they won't help with the endless desperation you live with because of your poverty. Not their problem. They won't do a damn thing about the shithole schools provided for your community, nor let you into their lily white suburban schools. Not their problem.

They won't do anything more than board up their plate glass windows when yet another one of you is shot down in the street by one of the white cops sent to stop and frisk you, sent to keep you in your place. Saving their store is their problem. You are their problem.

So there's your answer, white America. If you lived 365 days a year for some 20 or so years as these young black men are forced to live, under constant racial and economic oppression, with all the nifty consumer products of white America just out of reach, for life, you'd be burning these businesses down tonight yourself. First order of business is to get back at, to get rid of, your immediate oppressors.


Anonymous said...

The suspect looked gassed and could have been followed at a safe distance. There is a lack of common sense at play.

Anonymous said...

Did Judge Tunis own the Wendy's?

Anonymous said...

He shot him in the back twice from 30 feet because the misdemeanant had his taser. The fact some people think it is reasonable and police are trained to do it is the problem. Unfortunately, police are trained and expected to handle anything short of a mild conversation with their firearms. It’s like the old story about having a big hammer and everything looking like a nail. He killed over bullshit! Let him convince a judge and jury that he was justified.

Anonymous said...

the bottom line is that his death is his own fault he should never resisted arrest he would have been alive today .He resisted and had to pay the price with his life very foolish on his part.