Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

Now, we just cleared the air about another word irresponsibly bandied about, let's not start another. He wasn't "exonerated" - the complaints 'were not sustained' by the police department, ie. they didn't agree with the complaints and claimed to find no corroboration. Exoneration by definition is when you do in fact find proof of a negative - eg. proof my client was in Switzerland when the murder took place. "We didn't find anything" isn't exonerative so much as inconclusive.

Jesus, and here was me thinking that the capitalised word spelt E X O N E R A T E D on his official police record after each citizen complaint, was exonerated.

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

Surprise, surprise. The DA is black also.

Well it is a 54% black city. What's the problem?

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Now, we just cleared the air about another word irresponsibly bandied about, let's not start another. He wasn't "exonerated" - the complaints 'were not sustained' by the police department, ie. they didn't agree with the complaints and claimed to find no corroboration. Exoneration by definition is when you do in fact find proof of a negative - eg. proof my client was in Switzerland when the murder took place. "We didn't find anything" isn't exonerative so much as inconclusive.

This is a big thing in the US. Innocent until proven guilty. Not that any of this makes any difference whatsoever.

I smear Brooks. You smear the cop. It still makes no difference as Brooks was shot for his actions on the night and not due to a smear campaign.

Spon Farmer

weldoninhio wrote: »

Haven’t a link to the brother, but I’m fairly sure it was the first press conference they did.

Perry is also paying for them to go to college.

I wonder if Perry would do that for the children of a dead white guy killed by a drunk with a taser gun?

Rodin

Overheal wrote: »

Well it is a 54% black city. What's the problem?

I think the firing and charges are racially motivated

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

Jesus, and here was me thinking that the capitalised word spelt E X O N E R A T E D on his official police record after each citizen complaint, was exonerated.

So the #BlueWallofSilence slapped the word 'exonerated' on his disciplinary record and that's the furthest you look. Right.

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

I think the firing and charges are racially motivated

They aren't.

Overheal

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Perry is also paying for them to go to college.

I wonder if Perry would do that for the children of a dead white guy killed by a drunk with a taser gun?

Was one of them a cop? How do you even begin to pretend equivalence?

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

Running away with a police issue taser that he had just stolen and fired at a police officer moments after assaulting them and had the potential to stop and fire it at them again.

By the way, are you attributing any blame whatsoever to Brooks for the incident?

Yes, I am, but I'm also considering that there's extenuating circumstances. That he was drunk. That he had a legitimate fear against being arrested by police. That the police had other options to pursue rather than the final, fatal execution that was taken first. His bosses seem to agree as he as fired and now charged with a felony murder charge.

Right lads, I'm out for the night, have a good one.

Spon Farmer

Overheal wrote: »

adjective. of, relating to, or characterized by sudden or rash action, emotion, etc.; impulsive: an impetuous decision; an impetuous person. having great impetus; moving with great force; violent: the impetuous winds.

He shot at a perp, collapsed his lung, then none of the officers reported that the guy was shot. What else do you call it

I'll ask again.

How do you know he acted in an impulsive manner in that incident?

How do you know he didn't seen opportunity to shoot a guy just for the sake of it and took it?

BattleCorp

Stateofyou wrote: »

Yes, I am, but I'm also considering that there's extenuating circumstances. That he was drunk. That he had a legitimate fear against being arrested by police. That the police had other options to pursue rather than the final, fatal execution that was taken first. His bosses seem to agree as he as fired and now charged with a felony murder charge.

Right lads, I'm out for the night, have a good one.

Good idea. I'm out for the night too. Have fun.

Overheal

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I'll ask again.

How do you know he acted in an impulsive manner in that incident?

How do you know he didn't seen opportunity to shoot a guy just for the sake of it and took it?

I know that if he felt the shooting is justified he wouldn't have covered up the fact.

My uncertainties about the guy vanishes knowing he did this, on top the Brooks shooting which a reasonable person could take either way - but this was a clear breach of the public trust and it sounds like they should have terminated him years ago.

Spon Farmer

I have to ask again what video of this incident is Trevor Noah watching?

He is asking how the police let it get it get to the point of violence and why were they wrestling a drunk on the crowd as though they initiated the fight?

The two cops clearly did not expect this section from Brooks and he overwhelmed both of them in a physical despite being drunk.

Only a fool would the say cops let it get out of hand.

Spon Farmer

Overheal wrote: »

Was one of them a cop? How do you even begin to pretend equivalence?

Actually the dead white guy I was thinking of was just some dude who went out to get milk and stepped out in front of a charging Brooks.

However yes let us look at it as if it was cop that died.

Every was peaceful until Brooks resisted arrest. He floored both those cops - they simply were no match for him.

What if Brooks had actually done one of them a serious and permanent injury or even killed them.

Would Tyler Perry be on social media saying Brooks was a bad man and offering to pay for the education of the cop's children?

Spon Farmer

Overheal wrote: »

I know that if he felt the shooting is justified he wouldn't have covered up the fact.

My uncertainties about the guy vanishes knowing he did this, on top the Brooks shooting which a reasonable person could take either way - but this was a clear breach of the public trust and it sounds like they should have terminated him years ago.

I'm not talking about a justified shooting or a cover up.

You called Rolffe a hothead.

You've never met him nor have you seen all the details of the incidents reported.

You don't know why he shot the guy in that earlier incident.

However watch the video of the Brooks shooting. He looks to be shocked. Even scared maybe but again it was 40 minutes of calm that suddenly erupted into unexpected violence. Maybe even Brooks didn't know what he was going to do any of that.

Post honestly - put yourself in Rolffe's shoes. How would you have acted?

Overheal

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Actually the dead white guy I was thinking of was just some dude who went out to get milk and stepped out in front of a charging Brooks.

However yes let us look at it as if it was cop that died.

Every was peaceful until Brooks resisted arrest. He floored both those cops - they simply were no match for him.

What if Brooks had actually done one of them a serious and permanent injury or even killed them.

Would Tyler Perry be on social media saying Brooks was a bad man and offering to pay for the education of the cop's children?

There'd be no need, the taxpayers would already comped the family for the 21 gun salute, he would have been posthumously promoted and the family would receive life insurance payouts and his pension. Then, the family would have been able to sue the perpetrator or their estate in court for even more, and the city of course would front their legal fees because that's how we do for police officers over here.

Overheal

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I'm not talking about a justified shooting or a cover up.

You called Rolffe a hothead.

You've never met him nor have you seen all the details of the incidents reported.

You don't know why he shot the guy in that earlier incident.

However watch the video of the Brooks shooting. He looks to be shocked. Even scared maybe but again it was 40 minutes of calm that suddenly erupted into unexpected violence. Maybe even Brooks didn't know what he was going to do any of that.

Post honestly - put yourself in Rolffe's shoes. How would you have acted?

Not by firing my service weapon when the target is standing between me and a lane of bystanders, including children, in cars.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

So the #BlueWallofSilence slapped the word 'exonerated' on his disciplinary record and that's the furthest you look. Right.

The hypocrisy

Rodin

Who's Tyler Perry?

Overheal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The hypocrisy

What hypocrisy? If someone is exonerated there is incontrovertible proof of their innocence; Simply having "exoneration" writing on your record, ironically, is not exoneration. Least of all when that record is managed by - yourselves.

weldoninhio

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Perry is also paying for them to go to college.

I wonder if Perry would do that for the children of a dead white guy killed by a drunk with a taser gun?

Or the kids of someone killed by a scumbag drink driver.

weldoninhio

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Perry is also paying for them to go to college.

I wonder if Perry would do that for the children of a dead white guy killed by a drunk with a taser gun?

Or the kids of someone killed by a scumbag drink driver.

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

What hypocrisy? If someone is exonerated there is incontrovertible proof of their innocence; Simply having "exoneration" writing on your record, ironically, is not exoneration. Least of all when that record is managed by - yourselves.

Was there prrof he committed a crime?
Surely he'd be charged if there was incontrovertible proof of his guilt?

Or is you veiw biased

JJayoo

Not everything in life is a conspiracy theory.

BorneTobyWilde

The fact the cops gave him no medical assistance, instead kicked him while he was dying, and then posed for pictures while standing on his body says it all.
I was actaully thinking the cops would have been devasted in the moment afterwards considering what has been going on recently, but they loved it. These cops clearly need reigning in , they think they are above the law. Shooting a man in the back because your fat dougnut eating ass can't catch up, wtf.

yourdeadwright

Correct me if I'm wrong but I read a new York Times post from the other day that said last year 2019 in the states double the amount of non armed white people (20) where shot by cops than non armed back peopel (9)

Is that real number ? Or is that just New York

weldoninhio

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The fact the cops gave him no medical assistance, instead kicked him while he was dying, and then posed for pictures while standing on his body says it all.
I was actaully thinking the cops would have been devasted in the moment afterwards considering what has been going on recently, but they loved it. These cops clearly need reigning in , they think they are above the law. Shooting a man in the back because your fat dougnut eating ass can't catch up, wtf.

Rolfe immediately called for EMT assistance, then gave CPR. What are you talking about??

weldoninhio

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but I read a new York Times post from the other day that said last year 2019 in the states double the amount of non armed white people (20) where shot by cops than non armed back peopel (9)

Is that real number ? Or is that just New York

That’s about right. Whites are killed at a massively more disproportionate rate than any other race, based on % of crime they are involved with.

ronivek

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You still haven't explained the one part that people keep ignoring. What was the alternative? Let him go and it's on your head if an armed fugitive kills someone or hijacks a car and the driver gets hurt.

First of all you're equating not shooting him in that precise moment to "letting him go". There were two officers in pursuit of a drunk suspect; two police cars on scene and presumably more arriving.

So the first alternative I would present would be simply chasing him to see where he goes and what he does while warning him that you're considering shooting him. You still have the option to open fire at any point.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I would absolutely believe that there was a chance this drunk criminal would use the taser on an unsuspecting motorist and the police as you say, have a responsibility to the safety of the public.

And if the stray round which struck a vehicle in the parking lot had instead struck a member of the public and fatally wounded them? We know for an absolute fact that bullets were fired and at least one bullet missed; is that an acceptable risk to the safety of the public yet allowing the suspect to flee is an unacceptable risk when he doesn't even have a firearm?

We do not know for an absolute fact (and certainly the officers had absolutely no evidence from their encounter) that this man would likely go on to be a danger to members of the public. The only evidence they had was that he was willing to resist being detained. Is it possible he could have? Yes. Is there any way for these officers to reasonably predict that happening? No.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Even if he doesn't. He's an armed fugitive. Should be be allowed head home, sleep it off and hand himself in when convenient? That's a very very long shot. More likely he goes home, arms himself more and flees thereby increasing the risks to those he encounters.

"Armed fugitive"; he has a taser which has at most two rounds left and may at that stage just be a lump of plastic. As above not shooting him in that moment does not equate to letting him "head home". Aside from the fact you know as well as I do that the scene would have been surrounded with dozens of police, likely K-9 and helicopter units, and they would have surely had officers sent to his home address.

You could apply that argument to almost anyone as a justification for shooting them dead; there needs to be reasonable evidence to make those kinds of assumptions. I don't believe they had that evidence.

Also you may argue about the lethality of a taser but the research suggests it is less dangerous than punching, kicking, or striking someone:

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The use of force needs to be weighed in the situation, we agree on that. The least risk answer should be sought BUT that answer still needs to include the effective arrest of a suspect. People can't simple decide they will face Justice when it's convenient for them because it will never be convenient for 99% of them and while they are still at large they will more often than not commit more crime.

So you're saying if you can't arrest someone at the precise moment you first attempt it you should be able to shoot them dead? I mean that's the argument you're making here. And that I vehemently disagree with; and sincerely hope you aren't a Garda making those kinds of statements. Obviously people should be arrested where required by law but not at the expense of everyone's safety; in particular where there's no reasonable suspicion not stopping them in that exact moment will lead to a credible danger to the public.

If you want to argue that he posed a danger to the public if he wasn't stopped I can at least agree that it's possible. However do I think it likely based on what the officers would have known at that point in time? No I don't. I'm not sure what the statistics would say about it either; how many people resisting arrest for a DUI stop go on to actually seriously injure or kill someone? Since that's what this was: a DUI stop.

yourdeadwright

weldoninhio wrote: »

That’s about right. Whites are killed at a massively more disproportionate rate than any other race, based on % of crime they are involved with.

I genuinely didn't know that and thought there must be something up with the figures,

Not that it maters her because I think the guy acted like a lunatic and no matter what colour it was going to end poorly