geee, its almost like the incoming administration has no intentions of communicating there plans and fielding questions about their failures. It's almost like they want tuning in the status about what is happening to be a miserable experience.

This.

TDW should have a sticky-ed video of all of the times people have referred to "President Kamala" followed up by a break down of how she is a Clinton protege and wrapped up with her effectively bringing slavery back to California via forced prison labor and bogus prison sentence extensions.

Joe Biden has served his purpose and now any excuse will be used by the left to move him out of the way. Further, Hunter being the poster child for political elitism is shining light on Paul Pelosi and other congressman's kin who are so obviously engaged in foul play.

Nancy has likely had multiple pathways to make Joe and Hunter disappear in motion for a while now. If the puppet won't dance from day one expect it to be tossed aside and replaced.

This.

Have children. As many as you can manage. Teach them right.

Can someone post any evidence of this?

Want to break the interwebz? Everytime a democrat has a meltdown on Twitter just response with:

Ohh No, she has the TIV !

short messages with TLA's will feed Twitters algorithm and cause them to trend quickly...

This seams like a huge step to take legally. If Twitter suspended this account while this person was live on TV and clearly not tweeting then Twitter cannot take the position that 'an algorithm' is to blame for the suspension.

Any technical person worth their salt can explain to a judge how algorithmic operations are triggered and how a situation like this is clearly biased censorship intended to interfere with the election.

to be fair, Edward Snowden was used to set the expectations of any other honest folks working in those institutions.

Stop feeding them.

As in, if you are a farmer, you need to raise your prices as high as you can without allowing foreign competition to take your place.

Once these people have to hand over a fair price for the manual labor that creates the food they eat, they will change their tune.

You mean the one where the officer fires the taser at him, misses and then he takes off running? Yeah, hes easily 4 times the distance the officer was from him when he turned back to essentially blind fire at the officer while basically in a full sprint away from him.

So why not advocate for the law to reflect this? Why not advocate for the Tazer to be classified as lethal and end the problem?

Cops get angry, they have survival instincts like anyone else.

This is literally the line between people who should be cops and people who should not If you are not able to uphold your oath and take some level of restraint under fire than you don't have what it takes.

Further, why should the citizens of a liberal city pay taxes to a liberal Mayor that supports a liberal police chief, that imposes a liberal set of polices be forced to pay those taxes if all of the training and safety equipment mean nothing at the end of the day?

Why do we as tax payers have to provide police with specialized training to teach these officers that Tazers are non-lethal weapons if they are going to treat them as lethal ones? Shouldn't we just skip all the training and tell them to use Tazers only when lethal force is justified? Seams like it would solve all of these issues real quick.

I don't need a bubble gun.

I need equal application of the law.

You don't shoot a man in the back because he got away from you and slung a tazer shot, mostly blindly, behind himself to help get ahead.

If this is the standard we are policing under, write it into law and than we can revoke 75% of the policing budget because there is no longer any justification for cops to have any of the equipment or training that they do. Just let them shoot people who resist any arrest.

Says who? Not the supreme court...

This misconception creates a lot of the problems we have today.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm speaking directly to the use of Tazers and doing so SPECIFICALLY because we have been told by police over and over and over again that they are "non-lethal". When ever someone dies from being Tazed we are told "oo, they had a condition, sucks for them".

Now that the tables have turned, my position is that they cannot reverse course and consider a Tazer a threat to their life.

A far more pertinent comparison is with vehicles being classified as weapons.

If a "purp" in a car is even perceived as being non-compliant and they vehicle shits an inch, cops will unload there fire arms into it without concern. They will then go to court and argue that the vehicle was a deadly weapon regardless of not even being in the vehicles path.

While conversely, police officers who have been radio'ed in to join a chase will see a person fleeing on foot and happily drive there car into that person to stop them from running. The police as a whole in that moment may not even know if they are chancing the right person, yet they will argue in court that they didn't use lethal force.

I am not arguing on behalf of any of these scumbags nor am I arguing specifically against the police. I'm reasoning down the third path, equal application of the law even if you don't like it.

Maybe the presense of a second officer mitigates this risk, but it still presents a dangerous scenario whereby opening the door for additional violence on LEOs.

I don't completely disagree with this point but ultimately I circle back to the point I made to someone else:

These 2 officers together were unable to subdue this 1 intoxicated person due to either poor trainer, poor physical conditioning, having a bad night, just being off their game for what ever reason.

It is unreasonable to assume that they could be 100% accurate and have the mental capacity to account for bullets passing through the target.

There was a certain amount of luck involved in the officers not shooting innocent people. It may be in this situation that it was little but other situations will arise where innocents will ultimately get caught in the cross fire.

Thus the reason to change the policy. Is the public more safe with a passed out drunk in a car not moving or with bullets flying out of a gun controlled by someone who just proved they were not really at the top of their game in that moment?

Also, I as a theoretical criminal, would think to disguise my gun to look like a tazer if somehow my use of a tazer means the cop can only use a tazer.

A gun could be disguised as a ham sammich. I respectfully reject his as a valid point.

The 2 officers involved were either poorly trained or at that moment in time in poor physical condition. My guess, given that this is a liberal police department with lots of rule bending and favor granting, they were both.

They lost a physical fight 1 on 2. At this point they are both angry and enraged. They should call for help before acting in that state of mind.

The officers need to learn a drop of humility, admit defeat in the moment, and call for help.

The alternative in the situations is that some of them with end like this did where the outcome is poor and others will end with the officer firing, missing, and killing innocent people instead.

If they could not subdue a drunk 2 on 1 you are going to have a hard time convincing me they happened to be well trained enough to ensure they both were 100% accurate firing at the target and had the mental capacity to calculate whether or not the bullets would pass through the target and hit innocents on the other side.

You just walked the exact path that every hardcore liberal prosecutor does when they justify the decisions they make to themselves. Gratz.

You're argument depends on a hypothetical second cop being able to do a better job with a suspect alone, then he/she had when attempting restraint together.

as a defendant, I can can make hypothetical arguments, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthering to that point, in the case in question, the suspect was already fleeing and the Taser shot was clearly meant to help him escape.

To be clear on my position, I wanted this scumbag in jail. I wanted the police to be on there game and get the job done. The cops were clearly not well trained to loose a 2 on 1 fight with an intoxicated person. That was problem number one. Problem number 2 comes up when they crossed the thin blue line. The line were they new the suspect was effectively disarmed in the context of drunk driving, he was running away from his vehicle, he was not a threat to anyone and yet the officer choose to pull the trigger out of anger and in-the-moment rage for having lost the physical fight with this suspect.

The officer should have radio-ed the fleeing suspect in and allowed fresh officers to take him down.

Sure, but they can also be lethal if the target is high on stimulants or the person has certain medical conditions. So if we are going to give the police the excuse that they are "trained" to use the Taser in a non-lethal way than we have to see proof that the officer both verified the target did not have any medical conditions that could cause death and that he was reasonably confident the suspect was not high on stimulants.

In the eyes of the law you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sorry to play lawyer here but someone set me straight on my logic.

The facts I am basing my logic on:

1. Police have fought for many, many years and won many, many cases that tasers are non-lethal.
2. This even includes absolving the police of liability in cases where the target of the Taser has a health condition and dies as a result. AKA, you get Tased and die, your family cannot claim use of deadly force as the police are protected from liability since they could not know the heart condition existed "in the heat of the moment"
3. Police use the classification of "Non-lethal" to justify using Tasers in situations they are fully aware they would not be justified in using lethal force.
4. Case law tends to way heavy on decision making.

Given these rulings,a police officer cannot claim fear for there life when one of their own Tasers are pointing there way.

Further, the argument that they would be incapacitated and could have their weapon taken is a hypothetical situation. This situation would only really even be viable if the officer is alone or significantly separated from other officers.

In order to be honest and true to our values we must apply the law equally even when we don't like the result. Thus the law currently presents the police using lethal force to combat non-lethal force.

That being said, I also think that this situation is the very thing that people feared would happen when the police started Tasing people even without justification to use lethal force. We should revisit the law itself and properly classify the Taser as a tool that is used only when lethal force is justified.

This tool is meant to save lives when the threshold to use lethal force has already been crossed yet the police, in predominantly liberal precincts, have found ways to use the tool beyond its original intention. This incident has caused them to reap what they have sown.

Update:

I think alot of you felt like I was being "anti-police" when I was really warning of exactly this scenerio: https://thedonald.win/p/FzFyTLfx/so-it-is-a-deadly-weapon-and-the/c/

Didn't take long for the Democrats to figure out a way to twist the law to turn it against the police. The end result of this is going to be every person ever tazed is going to file lawsuits against the police for use of deadly force when it was not justified. That can of worms is open now...