Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.


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.

That’s not true at all. I assumed you read the thread before posting. If not however: Some examples were even given this evening: kicking the man after he was already limp and shot, firing in the direction of innocent bystanders, in fact ended up hitting one of the cars in the drive thru lane with multiple passengers in it. That’s all aside from whether deadly force was the right response for a taser, even if you choose that hill to die on, the fact alone that he hit the car and was very much at risk of killing innocent bystanders with that shot is ample answer to your question in and of itself.

ShatterAlan

Mic 1972 wrote: »

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

:pac:

ShatterAlan

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

Idiot or not, might they have conducted themselves in a manner, in your opinion, that would not have resulted in a death?

ronivek

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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?

And a magistrate (an expert with power in matters of law) evaluates whether or not the evidence is sufficient to justify issuing an arrest warrant. A prosecutor can't just make something up without a shred of evidence or legal merit and bring charges entirely on his own.

One of the main objectives of criminal proceedings is essentially to figure out "if they did the thing" to the satisfaction of the legal system; and to deal out appropriate punishment.

Heaven forbid a police officer should have to face the same legal process as the people they are seemingly allowed to shoot dead. Which by the way has historically been heavily biased against police officers even when charges are brought to Grand Jury or trial. For example in Georgia police officers have special leave to choose to deliver a sworn statement in person in their own grand jury proceedings; a right which no other citizen has.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

First of all these are criminal charges; not an Atlanta PD use of force hearing. My understanding is that immunity established in law for police officers is only applicable to civil proceedings. As such; I don't know precisely how these guidelines would impact on the trial.

As stated above there has in the past been bias shown in Grand Jury and other court proceedings in favour of police officers; and District Attorneys in general have a history of not bringing charges against police officers for that and other reasons.

However if for the sake of argument there would be some examination of the use of force policy:

An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object,
device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually
does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect
poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving
the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and
the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing
danger of serious physical harm to any person.

I've highlighted where "serious physical harm" is consistently mentioned.

When you scroll through the document you then find the following definitions:

Serious physical injury: a bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death; causes serious,
permanent disfigurement; or results in long-term loss or impairment of the functioning of any
bodily member or organ.

Less lethal weapon: any weapon or instrument used as a weapon that is not manifestly
designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious physical injury.

So if the Atlanta PD define a taser as a less-lethal weapon; they also state that it is not "manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious injury".

The suspect in this case was armed with a taser; and since the use of force guidelines stipulate that they consider deadly force warranted only when serious physical injury is likely or has actually occurred; I think it's absolutely possible to interpret his actions as a breach of use of force guidelines.

Of particular note is the fact that the police department themselves are the ones who get to decide if one of their brothers in blue have used excessive force; not some 3rd party agency, not an independent body, not the justice system.

Also of note is the repeated use of the term "reasonably"; which of course is up for interpretation based on all of the circumstances of any given incident.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

Good thing he's not the one who decides the officer's fate then. Whether or not these charges are spurious and politically motivated; surely it's a positive thing that the (hopefully balanced and unbiased) justice system gets to decide as opposed to the very police department whose officer is in question?

It might interest you to know that the officer in this particular case is alleged to have conspired with fellow officers to cover up a previous shooting of a fleeing unarmed suspect which thankfully did not result in his death.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

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.

Grand Jury's have tended to be biased in favour of police officers in the past. In addition as stated above; the officer will have the right to give a crafted sworn statement in person to the jurors. An advantage nobody else has in the criminal justice system of Georgia.

As to the murder and other charges to be honest I haven't really looked into them in any depth. I have no idea how I might personally vote were I on any Grand Jury; hopefully they'll be given enough information to make an informed decision one way or another.

To be clear; I don't necessarily believe this guy is a cold blooded murderer deserving of the death penalty or life in prison. I do however very much believe based on the existing evidence that he should not be a sworn police officer. I would also have serious concerns over police officers being allowed to shoot people armed with tasers without what I would consider a good enough reason; most especially when in carrying out that shooting they're putting the lives of innocents at immediate risk of death or serious injury.

ShatterAlan

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

Really?


What's your opinion then on obeying the first and fourth Amendment of the US Constitution?


You know ...one's right to free assembly and to petition governance in order to address grievance?


Because from a distance all over the world this "right" seems like a bit of a sham. ... not worth much.


How about the Fourth?


"All people should be safe about their possesions, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure" ???


So much for that crap.


Let's try the FIFTH Amendment whereby you can not incriminate yourself.


So ypu have the SIXTH AMENDMENT that affords you a speedy trial.



Some poor negroes are rotting in Rykers Island for a year or two and still haven't been tried or given a chance to defend or be defended.


Then we have another "Amendment" NUMBER EIGHT


The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.[1] The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.





So....all that coupled together...the US and everyone therein who swear some kind of pledge is, in fact, a liar.

Sean.3516

ShatterAlan wrote: »

His life couldn't have been saved?

The relevant question is not whether or not Rayshard Brooks could have been saved but whether the officer had the right to do what he did to protect himself.

And he did. Brooks fired a potentially deadly weapon at cop and got killed for his trouble.

To answer your question directly, yes, his life could have been saved if Brooks hadn’t resisted arrest, if he hadn’t wrestled police officers, stolen a police officer’s taser and discharged the taser at the officer. If Brooks hadn’t done any of these things his life could have been saved.

Green Peter

Overheal wrote: »

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.

You have switched to the bystanders now that you are losing the argument. Keep going it's entertaining to say the least.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The relevant question is not whether or not Rayshard Brooks could have been saved but whether the officer had the right to do what he did to protect himself.

And he did. Brooks fired a potentially deadly weapon at cop and got killed for his trouble.

To answer your question directly, yes, his life could have been saved if Brooks hadn’t resisted arrest, if he hadn’t wrestled police officers, stolen a police officer’s taser and discharged the taser at the officer. If Brooks hadn’t done any of these things his life could have been saved.

He had the right to endanger the lives of those in the drive thru? He nearly killed them.

Overheal

Green Peter wrote: »

You have switched to the bystanders now that you are losing the argument. Keep going it's entertaining to say the least.

Switching away from what exactly?

You haven’t added much to this thread yourself, just tossing peanuts from the gallery.

ShatterAlan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCOLxrwMqmI





This bastard made women blow him with a gun to their heads.

Green Peter

Overheal wrote: »

Switching away from what exactly?

You haven’t added much to this thread yourself, just tossing peanuts from the gallery.

I get it, peanuts = facts.

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

Some examples were even given this evening: kicking the man after he was already limp and shot,

With regard to the kicking thing, the prosecutor released a still from a video that supposedly showed the kicking but not the actual video. It would be nice if the DA released the actual video if they want us to believe the the kick was an actual assault. ie. Was Brooks still resisting arrest at that point? Was the kick intentional? If the officer was running toward his body and came to a sudden stop it could appear to be a kick but not be.

Given the fact that this DA is clearly acting in bad faith bringing charges that stand no chance of being prosecuted in order to gain favour with voters, I find it strange that they chose not to release the video.

In any case, the murder charge or false murder charge rather is my main concern.

Overheal wrote: »

firing in the direction of innocent bystanders, in fact ended up hitting one of the cars in the drive thru lane with multiple passengers in it.

That’s bad by whether or not pulling the trigger was unjustified is still dependent on whether or not the officer was under threat from Brooks which he was. If you try and shoot someone who’s a deadly threat to you and you accidentally hit someone else, that’s not an actual crime.

Still, if you want to charge the officer with endangering innocent bystanders, do that. But this officer is being charged with felony murder in a state that has the death penalty.

Overheal wrote: »

That’s all aside from whether deadly force was the right response for a taser, even if you choose that hill to die on, the fact alone that he hit the car and was very much at risk of killing innocent bystanders with that shot is ample answer to your question in and of itself.

A taser can absolutely be a deadly weapon and if he accidentally hits a civilian vehicle while attempting to shoot someone who was trying to tase him, that’s not really a crime.

Overheal

Green Peter wrote: »

I get it, peanuts = facts.

I’ll let that stream of consciousness speak for itself

Green Peter

Overheal wrote: »

I’ll let that stream of consciousness speak for itself

Thank you!

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

He had the right to endanger the lives of those in the drive thru? He nearly killed them.

If by “he” you mean the officer, he was trying to shoot someone that was discharging a deadly weapon at him and he missed and hit a vehicle. That isn’t a crime. Whether or not it is a crime still depends on whether or not he was justified in trying to shooting Brooks and he was.

If anyone is responsible for putting those people in danger, it’s Brooks.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

With regard to the kicking thing, the prosecutor released a still from a video that supposedly showed the kicking but not the actual video. It would be nice if the DA released the actual video if they want us to believe the the kick was an actual assault. ie. Was Brooks still resisting arrest at that point? Was the kick intentional? If the officer was running toward his body and came to a sudden stop it could appear to be a kick but not be.

I don’t think it’s rocket surgery. Brosnan told investigators that his partner said “I got him!” And then kicked him. In the photo we can see this is a very forceful kick.

Given the fact that this DA is clearly acting in bad faith bringing charges that stand no chance of being prosecuted in order to gain favour with voters, I find it strange that they chose not to release the video.

That is no fact that is conjecture. The officer is being prosecuted on 11 charges, several relate to shooting at a car full of bystanders.

That’s bad by whether or not pulling the trigger was unjustified is still dependent on whether or not the officer was under threat from Brooks which he was. If you try and shoot someone who’s a deadly threat to you and you accidentally hit someone else, that’s not an actual crime.

Jesus. Cops are just allowed to shoot into a crowd of people now to stop one perp huh? Mind boggling mental gymnastics. There are consequences for endangering the public. Your philosophy would lead to a lot more senseless violence.

Still, if you want to charge the officer with endangering innocent bystanders, do that. But this officer is being charged with felony murder in a state that has the death penalty.

that doesn’t mean the death penalty is even up for debate.

A taser can absolutely be a deadly weapon and if he accidentally hits a civilian vehicle while attempting to shoot someone who was trying to tase him, that’s not really a crime.

Halwell v Georgia 1998 found that the jury has the sole duty of determining if something is a deadly weapon within the realm of the case on hand.

ronivek

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If by “he” you mean the officer, he was trying to shoot someone that was discharging a deadly weapon at him and he missed and hit a vehicle. That isn’t a crime. Whether or not it is a crime still depends on whether or not he was justified in trying to shooting Brooks and he was.

If anyone is responsible for putting those people in danger, it’s Brooks.

Any chance you're going to answer the post which detailed some evidence that the Atlanta PD's guidelines don't appear to classify a taser as a deadly weapon? Since you were the one who claimed that was an indication that this officer was legally entitled to fire.

By the way another interesting fact here; the officer's lawyer declared that he believed the suspect had fired a pistol at him and not a taser. Coupled with the fact the officer didn't draw his own pistol even when he knew (or certainly should have known) that the suspect was only armed with a taser; surely this indicates that he wasn't in fear for his life as a result of the suspect being armed with a taser?

What kind of weapons in the suspects possession would make you decide that the officer wasn't justified in shooting him?

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If by “he” you mean the officer, he was trying to shoot someone that was discharging a deadly weapon at him and he missed and hit a vehicle. That isn’t a crime. Whether or not it is a crime still depends on whether or not he was justified in trying to shooting Brooks and he was.

If anyone is responsible for putting those people in danger, it’s Brooks.

Actually it is, and it’s bad faith posting of you to state so as a fact. For endangering the public he faces several charges of aggravated assault, damage to property and police oath violations.

Rolfe is the one who fired the gun and that blame rests mainly with him. You want to send the signal though that this is okay and the next cowboy that shoots up a perp at a fast food restaurant need not hesitate to blow away men women or children in pursuit of a criminal for DUI - after all, he could possibly hurt someone behind the wheel, so a few dead bodies in pursuit of justice ah that’s just collateral no crime no foul.

I understand the comfort of the “well he started it” filibuster but our justice system is far more nuanced than that. We all know if he wasn’t driving drunk this whole thread would be moot, but that’s not really addressing the core conflicts with the case at this stage.

Overheal

ronivek wrote: »

Any chance you're going to answer the post which detailed some evidence that the Atlanta PD's guidelines don't appear to classify a taser as a deadly weapon? Since you were the one who claimed that was an indication that this officer was legally entitled to fire.

By the way another interesting fact here; the officer's lawyer declared that he believed the suspect had fired a pistol at him and not a taser. Coupled with the fact the officer didn't draw his own pistol even when he knew (or certainly should have known) that the suspect was only armed with a taser; surely this indicates that he wasn't in fear for his life as a result of the suspect being armed with a taser?

What kind of weapons in the suspects possession would make you decide that the officer wasn't justified in shooting him?

Sounds like some classic lawyering and revisionism - first we hear about it and days post facto, and it being a matter of pure conjecture. The jury will weigh that supposition against clear verbal communication during the altercation that he had grabbed the taser, not a firearm. “Drop the taser!” Etc.

Snake Plisken

DA needs to be sacked! He wanted a cop prosecuted two weeks ago for using a taser calling it a deadly weapon and in this case it's not! He will be laughed out of court

Overheal

Snake Plisken wrote: »

DA needs to be sacked! He wanted a cop prosecuted two weeks ago for using a taser calling it a deadly weapon and in this case it's not! He will be laughed out of court

For the 4th time ITT: Halwell v State,

Whether a weapon is deadly or one likely to cause serious bodily injury is a question for the jury, which may consider all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used. Williams v. State, 127 Ga.App. 386(1), 193 S.E.2d 633 (1972). See also Arnett v. State, 245 Ga. 470(3), 265 S.E.2d 771 (1980). Cf. Smith v. Hardrick, 266 Ga. 54(2), 464 S.E.2d 198 (1995)

The DA is well in their bounds to choose when and how to exercise that elected prosecutorial authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_b78GSBUs

BorneTobyWilde

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273770669214490626

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

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’

He probably kicked him to ascertain if he was out cold or awake. If he was awake he would still be a threat.

weldoninhio

Danzy wrote: »

Atlanta police scanners still quite or intermittent.

It's turning into a worker's revolt.

Fair play to them. I hope they keep it up

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Meanwhile back in the real world.......

y0ssar1an22

He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others

thats what the Atlanta PD code of conduct says. Now, the code has been amended since the shooting and I am not sure whether this is the original or amended version.

1. possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury:
i suppose you need to know the definition of serious bodily injury is. so it a taser likely to cause serious bodily injury?

2. and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others.
if a taser is deemed capable of causing serious bodily injury, then the 2nd condition is met as he fired the taser at the cop.

Akrasia

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others

thats what the Atlanta PD code of conduct says. Now, the code has been amended since the shooting and I am not sure whether this is the original or amended version.

1. possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury:
i suppose you need to know the definition of serious bodily injury is. so it a taser likely to cause serious bodily injury?

2. and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others.
if a taser is deemed capable of causing serious bodily injury, then the 2nd condition is met as he fired the taser at the cop.

If the use of a Taser is likely to cause serious bodily harm than it’s the equivalent of a knife being used to stab someone

Imagine all those clips of cops tasering people but instead of a taser, they went up to them and stabbed them instead

They can’t say that a taser is reasonable force to restrain an uncooperative member of the public and also say the taser is likely to cause serious bodily injury

BattleCorp

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.

I see you have convicted him already so.

And a verdict doesn't convict or exonerate anyone in spite of the facts, it convicts or exonerates them because of the facts.

BattleCorp

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?

Yes, you are correct.

BattleCorp

Bold Abdu wrote: »

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.

None of us have seen the kick as far as I'm aware because that's on a video that hasn't been released.

We've no idea of the circumstances surrounding the kick. It may have been justified for all we know.