Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Overheal

Spon Farmer wrote: »

that was the 40+ minute video from Brosnan's body cam.

That is not the video that I'm talking about now. So no you have not answered that question already

Since you are an expert on police procedure what exactly did Rolffe and Brosnan do wrong "from the beginning"?

He didn’t claim expertise. He claimed his assessment. You’re welcome to disagree but why jump down everyone’s throat for offering opinion or analysis. As if you have special qualifications to render moot the analyses or opinions of anyone else

ShatterAlan

BattleCorp wrote: »

If he walks out of a court a free man, that means what he did was justified. He was tried and found not guilty.

On one hand you are saying everyone should face the criminal justice system and on the other you are saying the criminal justice system is wrong if a cop walks out of court a free man?

Which is it?

The verdict doesn't bestow justification nor does it represent the truth. It merely convicts or exonerates in spite of the facts.


The Guildford Four were convicted. That doesn't mean they committed the crime, merely that they were found guilty of it, railroaded even.


If this guy walks out of court not guilty of murder, that's doesn't mean he didn't murder the man. It just means he got away with it.

Spon Farmer

Overheal wrote: »

He didn’t claim expertise. He claimed his assessment. You’re welcome to disagree but why jump down everyone’s throat for offering opinion or analysis. As if you have special qualifications to render moot the analyses or opinions of anyone else

I haven't "jumped down anyone's throat". Show me where you think this happened?

The poster claims the cops were bad at their job and mishandled it from the beginning.

This is behaving as though he is abnormal expert so I asked him how things should have gone.

Spon Farmer

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The verdict doesn't bestow justification nor does it represent the truth. It merely convicts or exonerates in spite of the facts.


The Guildford Four were convicted. That doesn't mean they committed the crime, merely that they were found guilty of it, railroaded even.


If this guy walks out of court not guilty of murder, that's doesn't mean he didn't murder the man. It just means he got away with it.

Is this the view you have of all court cases?

mynamejeff

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The verdict doesn't bestow justification nor does it represent the truth. It merely convicts or exonerates in spite of the facts.


The Guildford Four were convicted. That doesn't mean they committed the crime, merely that they were found guilty of it, railroaded even.


If this guy walks out of court not guilty of murder, that's doesn't mean he didn't murder the man. It just means he got away with it.

so regardless of facts evidence proof and all that pointless rubbish , your opinion is what really matters here ….

my god the ego is astounding

ShatterAlan

BattleCorp wrote: »

Nope, it's not a one shot weapon. I believe that model of taser was a 3 shot weapon.

Glad you used the word weapon because many here on this thread don't acknowlede that a taser is a weapon.

A broken bottle, a brick, crowbar, screwdriver, etc are not weapons either until they are used to kill someone. Then they are classified as "the murder weapon", no?

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

so regardless of facts evidence proof and all that pointless rubbish , your opinion is what really matters here ….

my god the ego is astounding

Aldaba “had to live with the fact that at every stage, every judge that reviewed the case determined that there were constitutional violations that had occurred,” he said. “Despite that, she still couldn’t have a trial.” because of qualified immunity.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/

Suggesting that someone is unqualified to say justice is not served in these cases is crap.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Spon Farmer wrote: »

that was the 40+ minute video from Brosnan's body cam.

That is not the video that I'm talking about now. So no you have not answered that question already

Since you are an expert on police procedure what exactly did Rolffe and Brosnan do wrong "from the beginning"?

I've already told you, I've watched everything from the incident. Stop attempting to side track the discussion by making out you've seen things I haven't... it's a tired old tactic used by people who have run out of coherent arguments.

Or produce whatever video you think I haven't seen, and I'll give you my opinion...

Overheal

ShatterAlan wrote: »

A broken bottle, a brick, crowbar, screwdriver, etc are not weapons either until they are used to kill someone. Then they are classified as "the murder weapon", no?

It is the sole responsibility of the jury to determine if an object or weapon is considered deadly or not in full light of the facts of a particular case. Harwell v Georgia 1998.

Bold Abdu

Overheal wrote: »

He kicked him. Now we are splitting hairs over a kick? I’m not interested sorry. He kicked a man while he was already down. It’s gross misconduct period.

What a ridiculous response.


So it doesn't matter why he kicked him, how many times he kicked him or where he kicked him............as opposed to the "kicking" you suggested was dished out earlier.

GreeBo

Green Peter wrote: »

He had a taser gun which he fired at Police.

There are many examples of mass shootings where the (white) gun man is taken alive by police. In those scenarios the gun man *has already shot and killed multiple people*, why are then taken alive and not Mr Brooks?

GreeBo

weldoninhio wrote: »

In the criminal justice system you are innocent until proven guilty.

LOL, unless you are black and named Rayshard Brooks, right?:rolleyes:

Mic 1972

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Nope, I've watched the whole thing.

It's easy to be calm and collected when you're questioning one calm co-operative citizen who is complying with your instructions... but how calm and composed are you if they do something unpredictable? That's the real test if these guys were any good at their jobs!

Well, these officers totally lost their composure when it mattered the most... When they needed cool heads to make sensible decisions in a more stressful situation, they just completely lost their sh!t and overreacted.

Btw those field sobriety tests are a load of nonsense if you ask me... this man was clearly intoxicated. The breathalyzer clearly showed it, and his actions showed it... not to mention he smelled of alcohol... putting a very groggy and tired drunk man through that pointless sobriety test, probably only served to further frustrate him.

Are we still looking for excuses?

The guy should have collaborated with the cops, instead he did the opposite. Whatever happened after that it's his own fault and no one else's

ronivek

I've seen a few comments about the "so-called kick". Here's a (rather poor quality) still from what looks to be a bystanders mobile phone video:



Now that could be him tripping over Brooks; but to me it looks like someone who has taken a run up at someone to give him a full force kick. I'm not sure how that would ever be an appropriate response from a police officer who was in any way in control in that moment.

Mic 1972

GreeBo wrote: »

LOL, unless you are black and named Rayshard Brooks, right?:rolleyes:

Well he would have been given a chance to defend himself in court if required, Can't blame the cops if you behave aggressively.

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Are we still looking for excuses?

The guy should have collaborated with the cops, instead he did the opposite. Whatever happened after that it's his own fault and no one else's

No one else’s my hole. Next we will hear how the cops weren’t even there

Overheal

ronivek wrote: »

I've seen a few comments about the "so-called kick". Here's a (rather poor quality) still from what looks to be a bystanders mobile phone video:



Now that could be him tripping over Brooks; but to me it looks like someone who has taken a run up at someone to give him a full force kick. I'm not sure how that would ever be an appropriate response from a police officer who was in any way in control in that moment.

I see no reason to believe he was tripping over Brooks, it’s not as if he was already running behind him when brooks fell. I agree with your assessment that looks like a full force “fcuk you” kick, the way he is already leveraging his body to balance against the blow.

Green Peter

mynamejeff wrote: »

so regardless of facts evidence proof and all that pointless rubbish , your opinion is what really matters here ….

my god the ego is astounding

I think he could actually be Alan!

ronivek

Overheal wrote: »

I see no reason to believe he was tripping over Brooks, it’s not as if he was already running behind him when brooks fell. I agree with your assessment that looks like a full force “fcuk you” kick, the way he is already leveraging his body to balance against the blow.

I mean you could argue it was done out of frustration or despair that he was somehow forced to shoot him; but I can't really see it.

If you really didn't want to hurt him and were frustrated/despairing surely the response would be to immediately try and render aid?

The other telling thing is that when I've seen other police shooting videos where the officers are in genuine fear for their lives; they do not go anywhere near the suspect. Certainly they would not run up to him without gun drawn and pointed at him just so they could kick him.

Of course we don't know when this kick was actually delivered; so it's hard to know either way. I just know it doesn't look good.

Green Peter

Overheal wrote: »

I see no reason to believe he was tripping over Brooks, it’s not as if he was already running behind him when brooks fell. I agree with your assessment that looks like a full force “fcuk you” kick, the way he is already leveraging his body to balance against the blow.

Could he have been trying to kick the firearm / taser away and ray moved. We don't know. I don't know and you don't know. Maybe he tripped. Thank God it was the taser he took or both police men could have been killed by him.

Overheal

ronivek wrote: »

I mean you could argue it was done out of frustration or despair that he was somehow forced to shoot him; but I can't really see it.

If you really didn't want to hurt him and were frustrated/despairing surely the response would be to immediately try and render aid?

The other telling thing is that when I've seen other police shooting videos where the officers are in genuine fear for their lives; they do not go anywhere near the suspect. Certainly they would not run up to him without gun drawn and pointed at him just so they could kick him.

Of course we don't know when this kick was actually delivered; so it's hard to know either way. I just know it doesn't look good.

It’s just not justified in any sense. Being mad one way or another is no excuse. This coupled with the fact that they didn’t render first aid at all they just let him bleed out, even though policy requires them to render timely aid - which is not just kicking back and waiting for EMTs to arrive. Imagine there had been a child in the car he shot, would he not do everything physically possible to render aid? A perp is a little different, but not much when 2 able bodied officers fail to do so after shooting and disarming the man (and if you say “he could still be violent” - what, so you want the EMT to be the first to find out? Same people mocking the idea of social workers in policing, probably).

Mic 1972

Overheal wrote: »

No one else’s my hole. Next we will hear how the cops weren’t even there

The police was there and handled him correctly until he decided he wasn't going to collaborate. His destiny was entirely in his hands
Stop looking for excuses, next time it was perfectly fine for him to running away and stealing a taser

Overheal

Green Peter wrote: »

Could he have been trying to kick the firearm / taser away and ray moved. We don't know. I don't know and you don't know. Maybe he tripped. Thank God it was the taser he took or both police men could have been killed by him.

There is a comically low chance he tripped and you don’t need that much violence to kick a taser off a dying man. His partner already told the DAs office he kicked Brooks, not ‘he kicked the taser away’

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

no need to project your fantasy, the police was there and handled him correctly until he decided he wasn't going to collaborate. His destiny was entirely in his hands

Why do you pretend cops had no influence in his destiny here? It makes zero logical sense.

ShatterAlan

Spon Farmer wrote: »

They "lost their ****" after this guy took them by surprise and wrestled them both to the ground, tossed on across his back and stole a weapon.

No one is perfect and no training can prepare you deal with every unexpected situation.

Are Atlanta cos allowed to arrest someone without doing a breathalyser test? Don't they need evidence the guy is drunk?

"probably only served to further frustrate him " However you think that a drunk driver needs to be mollycoddled? Poor guy. Should Rolffe have offered him his tit to suckle on too?

And where is that video is Brooks showing any sign of this "frustration"? He is annoying but amiable and respectful the entire time. Which further adds to the shock of his violence.

Two sober guys are caught off guard by unexpected violence and don't react perfectly. **** them.

A drunk driver attacks and overpowers cops in a moment of unexpected violence. Poor guy.

They didn't shoot him because their lives were in danger. They shot him because they were pissed off. They shot him because they don't have the coolheadedness to not let their personal feelings get in the way. They shot him because their manhood and authority was challenged. And that's something that they were mentally not able to deal with.


These cops don't possess the level of maturity and composure to assess a situation and exercise restraint no matter how annoyed they might be with someone's behaviour. The policy is to always stamp your authority on someone and if they upend that credo then violence is the alternative.


Cops shoot people running away not because they are a threat but to show them "I'm going to have the last word, punk!"

ronivek

Another thing which strikes me:

When the suspect got control of the taser; neither officer deemed the taser to be of sufficient threat to their or anyone else's safety to draw their firearms.

Even while chasing a suspect armed with a taser; the officer only has his taser in his hand. He only draws his firearm after the suspect appears to fire the taser and miss.

If the suspect had an actual deadly weapon (i.e. the officer's firearm and not taser) surely he would have reacted quite different right from the word go.

Instead it looks like he may have either completely panicked at the pop of the taser (although how you can mistake a luminous yellow taser for a firearm I don't know; especially considering you knew he had the taser and could reasonably assume he did not have any other weapons) or was enraged at the fact the suspect had fired the taser and was escaping. I don't really find it plausible that the taser suddenly became a deadly weapon in the officer's eyes.

In either case I don't think it looks good for interpreting Atlanta PDs own use of force guidelines.

ShatterAlan

Green Peter wrote: »

Looks like the police are walking off the job in numbers in Atlanta. Don't blame them. Hope BLM can manage the calls tonight. I'm sure they can and will.

They walked off the job too after that 75 year old man was pushed to the ground and had his skull fractured. Not because they condemned the thugs who assaulted the old guy but because 2 or their squad of thugs were fired.


How sick do you have to be to defend that kind of savagery against a pensioner?


People always talk about a "few bad apples"...BOLLOCKS.


There were 59 in that unit, 2 nearly killed an old man...he may die yet or be left to live out what's left of his few years in a vegetative state, the other 57 supported the bastards in their brutality by going on strike in support of their barbarism.


There's people on this forum who, if a US cop pulled out a Stanley Knife, held down someone and sliced their throat open and sat on them till they gurgled their last bloody breath, would try to justify it. They would say "the victim shouldn't have been walking and chewing gum at the same time in front of a fine model of peacekeeping".

ronivek

Also just to highlight from the moment of the shooting the position of the officer (circled in blue), the suspect, and the white car with 3 occupants which was struck by one bullet to the right of the screen:



This wasn't a vehicle sitting in a parking spot at the far side of a car park struck by an unlucky stray bullet; this was a vehicle in line at a restaurant drive-thru with engine running, lights on, and not 6-7 meters behind the suspect.

How can you say this shooting wasn't at the very best completely reckless and absolutely not in any way shape or form in the interest of public safety?

punisher5112

ShatterAlan wrote: »

They didn't shoot him because their lives were in danger. They shot him because they were pissed off. They shot him because they don't have the coolheadedness to not let their personal feelings get in the way. They shot him because their manhood and authority was challenged. And that's something that they were mentally not able to deal with.


These cops don't possess the level of maturity and composure to assess a situation and exercise restraint no matter how annoyed they might be with someone's behaviour. The policy is to always stamp your authority on someone and if they upend that credo then violence is the alternative.


Cops shoot people running away not because they are a threat but to show them "I'm going to have the last word, punk!"

They???
Only one shot.

Overheal

The 2nd officer has turned himself in for the charge filed against him (Brosnan)

https://www.mediaite.com/news/atlanta-police-officer-devin-brosnan-turns-himself-in-for-role-in-rayshard-brooks-incident/

The killer cop (Rolfe) also has until 6 PM to surrender under his own recognizance.