TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/2 ... 96546.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think there is any question on how this one was handled, but listen to the crowd as they react:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU[/youtube]

As per Texas law, Officers defended themselves appropriately. Within 21ft rule and closing in there is no time to dwell on the right level of force. A knife is a deadly means and that justifies deadly response.
The cry of one why the police did not use a teaser is questionable. You cannot guess that in split second when someone is willing to die at the hands of the Police what level of force to use.

That video is crazy. He had to have been on drugs. Looked like he was actually try to flank the police officers.

I suspect, in addition to some arguing he should have tazed him instead, there will be people questioning why he continued to shoot after the guy fell to the ground.

Based on recent events and the reaction of the crowd, things could get ugly again.

mojo84 wrote:Based on recent events and the reaction of the crowd, things could get ugly again.

The difference being is there is documented evidence of what happened, vs speculation.

LAYGO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on recent events and the reaction of the crowd, things could get ugly again.

The difference being is there is documented evidence of what happened, vs speculation.

Emotions are what drives many people in situations like this. Did you not hear the comments from the witnesses? Plus, people will use the documentation to justify their position regardless which side the chose. Some will even argue contrary to documented evidence. There are examples of that on this very forum.

mojo84 wrote:

LAYGO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on recent events and the reaction of the crowd, things could get ugly again.

The difference being is there is documented evidence of what happened, vs speculation.

Emotions are what drives many people in situations like this. Did you not hear the comments from the witnesses? Plus, people will use the documentation to justify their position regardless which side the chose. Some will even argue contrary to documented evidence. There are examples of that on this very forum.

Ya heheh, sorry, was coming from a rational stand point! ;)

mojo84 wrote:

LAYGO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on recent events and the reaction of the crowd, things could get ugly again.

The difference being is there is documented evidence of what happened, vs speculation.

Emotions are what drives many people in situations like this. Did you not hear the comments from the witnesses? Plus, people will use the documentation to justify their position regardless which side the chose. Some will even argue contrary to documented evidence. There are examples of that on this very forum.

The difference here is this guy was definately armed. Michael Brown was not, so the first thing coming out is 'Police shot an unarmed teen'. This guy was 25 and heading at them with a knife.

LAYGO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

LAYGO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on recent events and the reaction of the crowd, things could get ugly again.

The difference being is there is documented evidence of what happened, vs speculation.

Emotions are what drives many people in situations like this. Did you not hear the comments from the witnesses? Plus, people will use the documentation to justify their position regardless which side the chose. Some will even argue contrary to documented evidence. There are examples of that on this very forum.

Ya heheh, sorry, was coming from a rational stand point! ;)

I catch myself doing that too.

Keith B wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

LAYGO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on recent events and the reaction of the crowd, things could get ugly again.

The difference being is there is documented evidence of what happened, vs speculation.

Emotions are what drives many people in situations like this. Did you not hear the comments from the witnesses? Plus, people will use the documentation to justify their position regardless which side the chose. Some will even argue contrary to documented evidence. There are examples of that on this very forum.

The difference here is this guy was definately armed. Michael Brown was not, so the first thing coming out is 'Police shot an unarmed teen'. This guy was 25 and heading at them with a knife.

I understand your point and agree. Now, convince the people that witnessed it that was saying a taser would have been a better option and the ones that will take exception to continuing to shoot after he was on the ground.

I hope logic overcomes emotion. Not going to hold my breath though.

Here you go.

http://rt.com/usa/181772-deadly-st-loui ... ing-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2014/0 ... olice.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess these sheeple have never heard of the Tueller Drill or the effective ballistics of pistol ammo.

This happened Tuesday. If they were gonna be that upset I think it would have already been going on.

Ok

Are you going to believe the crowd or your lying eyes??