Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

FVP3

Stateofyou wrote: »

Hahhahhhahaha
Enlighten us so, oh brilliant random Irish forum commenter, on how the role of American DA "normally" does their job. :pac:

I presume we are all Irish here.

Danzy

Atlanta police scanners still quite or intermittent.

It's turning into a worker's revolt.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

Atlanta police scanners still quite or intermittent.

It's turning into a worker's revolt.

You can’t say that. Admitting it to be that would be against the law for them to do. :pac:

Overheal

FVP3 wrote: »

I presume we are all Irish here.

Wrong

Mic 1972

Overheal wrote: »

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

Why do you pretend that he had no responsibility in drawing that to himself?
People are accountable for their own action before blaming other for their reactions

s7ryf3925pivug

Team fortress 2 has introduced an update to deal with racist bots. They didn't think of censoring the n-word in the names of weapons though.

So apparently lots of TF2 plyers are massive racists. God knows what the L4D community is like.

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Why do you pretend that he had no responsibility in drawing that to himself?
People are accountable for their own action before blaming other for their reactions

This is a baseless mischaracterization of my viewpoint.

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

You can’t say that. Admitting it to be that would be against the law for them to do. :pac:

I've been unionizing them on the quiet.

Overheal

Talia High Ledge wrote: »

Team fortress 2 has introduced an update to deal with racist bots. They didn't think of censoring the n-word in the names of weapons though.

So apparently lots of TF2 plyers are massive racists. God knows what the L4D community is like.

I have played a ridiculous number of total hours in TF2 over the years and since it’s orange box release. I haven’t played much lately, it’s a go-to pick up and put down shooter

You would occasionally see WUMs in a server spouting racist bile but to suggest they were supported by the community would be exaggerating things. They’re down there beneath aimbotters: theyre a thing, nobody likes them and they aren’t supported.

Mic 1972

Overheal wrote: »

This is a baseless mischaracterization of my viewpoint.

You keep avoiding the point
People are expected to collaborate with the police, he chose not to.
His fault

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

I've been unionizing them on the quiet.

They already are! But union strikes by policing unions are illegal.

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You keep avoiding the point
People are expected to collaborate with the police, he chose not to.
His fault

What point am I avoiding by challenging your mischaracterizing my viewpoint? None.

You said, without caveat, that the perp was solely responsible for what happened the other night. Illogical, the cops clearly played a role. Then you attacked me suggesting I said the perp bears no responsibility for what happened, when of course he did bear responsibility.

It IS possible for both parties to contribute to a violent confrontation. I don’t know why you feel the need to be so binary and monochromatic about it.

Stateofyou

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You keep avoiding the point
People are expected to collaborate with the police, he chose not to.
His fault

In the course of their duty they are going to come across people who may be drunk, high, in a mental health crisis, medical emergency or emotions running hot. They need to be able to handle these situations with professionalism, decency and according to training. Shooting someone in the back while running away, not rendering aid as required, shooting nearby cars, and then appears to be kicking the man as he bleeds (and according to witnesses) falls well short of appropriate conduct. This is why he has been fired, facing 11 charges including murder.

"Officer Garrett Rolfe shot Brooks after the 27-year-old black man grabbed a Taser and ran, firing it at the officer, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said. But when the officer fired his gun, Brooks was too far ahead of him for the Taser to be a danger, and it had already been fired twice, so it was empty and no longer a threat, Howard said."

Mic 1972

Overheal wrote: »

What point am I avoiding by challenging your mischaracterizing my viewpoint? None.

You said, without caveat, that the perp was solely responsible for what happened the other night. Illogical, the cops clearly played a role. Then you attacked me suggesting I said the perp bears no responsibility for what happened, when of course he did bear responsibility.

It IS possible for both parties to contribute to a violent confrontation. I don’t know why you feel the need to be so binary and monochromatic about it.

Dealing with the police is as monochromatic as it gets I'm afraid. You as citizen must collaborate, avoiding to do so will have consequences that can't always be predicted

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Dealing with the police is as monochromatic as it gets I'm afraid. You as citizen must collaborate, avoiding to do so will have consequences that can't always be predicted

So in your view police can do no wrong? NOTHING impeachable about their conduct here? Shooting a car full of people? Kicking a dying man out of spite? I’m asking.

Sean.3516

Absolutely ridiculous this officer being charged with murder.

This was absolutely a justified shooting. The guy took a police officer’s taser and fired it at him. He was not “unarmed” as media outlets are falsely saying.

Let me be clear, if you attack ANYBODY, be it a police officer or anybody else, your right to life is temporarily suspended until you’ve been neutralised. That’s how self-defence works. The idea that this officer had an obligation to just stand there and let himself be tasered is ridiculous. (And yes, tasers can kill people)

The proof is in the fact that authorities cannot name a single police procedure/regulation violated by this officer but his actions according to politicians were “morally wrong” never the less.

Basically this just means that a black man was killed and therefore a head must roll in order to satisfy the mobs that have been ransacking America.

Mic 1972

Overheal wrote: »

So in your view police can do no wrong? NOTHING impeachable about their conduct here? Shooting a car full of people? Kicking a dying man out of spite? I’m asking.

In my view you need to take responsibility of your actions before you worry about other people's reactions. The man put himself in that position
I see no prejudice for black people there, only cops reacting to an idiot

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

In my view you need to take responsibility of your actions before you worry about other people's reactions. The man put himself in that position
I see no prejudice for black people there, only cops reacting to an idiot

None of this actually addresses the core of my question. We aren’t discussing what Rayshard “needed to worry about” in his final moments. We are talking about the conduct of the police, who very nearly killed a bystander or two with his excessive force.

ronivek

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The proof is in the fact that authorities cannot name a single police procedure/regulation violated by this officer but his actions according to politicians were “morally wrong” never the less.

You mean apart from the fact his employment was terminated?

And that a warrant was issued by a duly appointed judge based on the advice and evidence of a duly appointed District Attorney and his staff for his arrest on 11 counts including assault and violation of his oath as a peace officer?

Or the fact that in Georgia law what rises to the level of assault with a deadly weapon is determined by a jury of your peers and not by a bunch of police officers sitting in a room judging one of their colleagues they've probably had a few beers with on occasion?

ronivek

Mic 1972 wrote: »

In my view you need to take responsibility of your actions before you worry about other people's reactions. The man put himself in that position
I see no prejudice for black people there, only cops reacting to an idiot

So the suspect has to take responsibility for his actions; but the officer doesn't?

GreeBo

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You keep avoiding the point
People are expected to collaborate with the police, he chose not to.
His fault

Firstly its cooperate, if they are collaborating thats a whole other problem.

Secondly, not cooperating isnt a death sentence

GreeBo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous this officer being charged with murder.

This was absolutely a justified shooting. The guy took a police officer’s taser and fired it at him. He was not “unarmed” as media outlets are falsely saying.

Let me be clear, if you attack ANYBODY, be it a police officer or anybody else, your right to life is temporarily suspended until you’ve been neutralised. That’s how self-defence works. The idea that this officer had an obligation to just stand there and let himself be tasered is ridiculous. (And yes, tasers can kill people)

No, self-defence doesn't extend to killing someone, you've heard of reasonable force, right?

ShatterAlan

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Is this the view you have of all court cases?

It's my view of the adversarial system of trial.


it's also, to put it in simple terms. quite obvious.


A court ruling does not alter the facts. The ruling merely states the breadth of culpability or absence thereof.

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

No, self-defence doesn't extend to killing someone, you've heard of reasonable force, right?

In utopia maybe but in this world it certainly does.

ShatterAlan

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

It's not mine or anyone else's opinion in the slightest.


I simply pointed out that if a man is killed at the hand of another man and the killer walks free from court, that doesn't mean that his killing was justified or even that it didn't happen but purely that the killer was found to be not answerable to the charge levelled against him.


I believe I have been quite clear on that point.

Sean.3516

ronivek wrote: »

You mean apart from the fact his employment was terminated?

And that a warrant was issued by a duly appointed judge based on the advice and evidence of a duly appointed District Attorney and his staff for his arrest on 11 counts including assault and violation of his oath as a peace officer?

Yes, and?
A prosecutor has the authority to charge a person with anything. That doesn't mean they did the thing. You know that right?

My post said that in spite of the fact he'd been charged, NOBODY has stated how this officer violated police procedure or exceeded his own bounds. In fact many people have pointed out that the APD's regulations specifically allow an officer to use deadly force if there is a threat of significant bodily harm.

It might interest you to know that the DA in this specific case is under investigation for sexual harassment among other things and is therefore running in a very tight re-election race for DA. Nobody believes that a grand jury will prosecute based on the facts of the case, especially the DA who made the charges. This is political posturing designed to curry favour with the black voters this DA needs in order to be returned to his own position.

ronivek wrote: »

Or the fact that in Georgia law what rises to the level of assault with a deadly weapon is determined by a jury of your peers and not by a bunch of police officers sitting in a room judging one of their colleagues they've probably had a few beers with on occasion?

Yes, and as I've said, no grand jury will bring this to trial because it is plain as day that this was not murder. Wasn't even manslaughter. A completely justified shooting.

Sean.3516

GreeBo wrote: »

No, self-defence doesn't extend to killing someone, you've heard of reasonable force, right?

I didn't say that you get to kill someone because they attack you. I said you get you get to do whatever it takes to neutralise the situation up to an including deadly force.

If you have reason to believe that someone is going to do you serious bodily harm (as this officer did, tasers are potentially deadly weapons, Rayshard Brooks was on parole and had no intention of going back to jail which is why is became violent as soon as he realised he was being arrested.) you have the right defend yourself with deadly force.

Is your argument that the police are supposed to just stand there and let someone taser them? The other argument I've heard is that he shouldn't have pursued him. Yes, let the drunk violent man with a taser go on his way.

ShatterAlan

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.

This is somebody's LIFE.



How many cops snuff out an easy target yet manage to apprehend a psychopath with an AK who has gone ballistic?


How many of them cower behind their cars when there's an "active shooter" in a school and they don't know if their days are numbered?


Brave? Nah.

ShatterAlan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous this officer being charged with murder.

This was absolutely a justified shooting. The guy took a police officer’s taser and fired it at him. He was not “unarmed” as media outlets are falsely saying.

Let me be clear, if you attack ANYBODY, be it a police officer or anybody else, your right to life is temporarily suspended until you’ve been neutralised. That’s how self-defence works. The idea that this officer had an obligation to just stand there and let himself be tasered is ridiculous. (And yes, tasers can kill people)

The proof is in the fact that authorities cannot name a single police procedure/regulation violated by this officer but his actions according to politicians were “morally wrong” never the less.

Basically this just means that a black man was killed and therefore a head must roll in order to satisfy the mobs that have been ransacking America.

His life couldn't have been saved?

ShatterAlan

punisher5112 wrote: »

They???
Only one shot.

How many times was the man shot?


How many pursued him and shot him?


And which one administered life saving care before medical professionals arrived to help him?


Did any of those gunmen attend to the man they shot? All I saw was them stand around like they had just blown a pigeon out of a tree and let it flap there till dead.