Atlanta cops being charged.

[ColdNoMore]

And a whole lot of new, disgusting, info coming out...justifying those charges.

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness.

I'm curious to know, if anyone who originally thought this killing was justified...have now changed their minds?

I'm going to go out on a limb here (just kidding, it's not really that hard to predict)...that very few will raise their hands.

I hope, and would be happy...if I'm wrong though.

More to come. :popcorn:

[retiredguy123]

Well, Ted Williams, a black, former D.C. homicide detective, and criminal attorney has already blasted the Atlanta Attorney General for overcharging the case. He thinks it will be difficult to convict the officer.

[dewilson58]

Of course there will be charges filed......pass the buck and let someone else say it was justified. No surprise.

[karostay]

Hope the police stage a 2 week call in sick ...Better yet quit less BS working for Wallmart

[ColdNoMore]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?

[B767drvr]

Seems like a common thread to all of these deaths is NOT COOPERATING with the police. Quit attacking cops, save your story for the judge, and everyone lives. There are approximately 60 MILLION interactions per year between police and civilians (over 16). Obviously, lots of people are cooperating, but some CHOOSE TO NOT COOPERATE. I wonder why?

[anothersteve]

I still think it was justified.
Steve

[Steve9930]

Bottom line, there will be a trial, he will not be convicted, Atlanta will burn.

[Joe V.]

[SIZE="3"]And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?



As someone who knows Ted personally and worked with him on several major cases in DC, I know you have no idea who Ted really is and just how wrong in your insinuation you are.

[ColdNoMore]

Well, scratch my #6 above...in Post #5. :oops:

It sounds like Brosnan is NOT going to be cooperating.

I wonder what happened? :confused:

[B767drvr]

But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?

I honestly don't know the legal particulars of this shooting. Some cops say legal, others say no. I've heard "lawful but awful".

Common sense dictates that if you drive drunk, pass out in a fast-food drive-thru line, attack/physically assault and overpower TWO cops, then steal one of the cop's tasers and fire it at him... to a large extent, you own what comes your way.

Just watched the video again and the police were very cordial. Mr. Brooks is the one who initiated and attacked the cops. He threw two punches at one of the officers. The attacked officer responded by firing his taser at Mr. Brooks. In what world is it okay to physically attack a police officer? Why is anyone possibly defending Mr. Brook's action?

Like I said before... it's not a difficult concept - cooperate with the police, defend yourself in front of a judge, and everyone lives another day.

[ColdNoMore]

I honestly don't know the legal particulars of this shooting. Some cops say legal, others say no. I've heard "legal but awful".

Common sense dictates that if you drive drunk, pass out in a fast-food drive-thru line, attack/physically assault and overpower TWO cops, then steal one of the cop's tasers and fire it at him... to a large extent, you own what comes your way.

Like I said before... it's not a difficult concept - cooperate with the police, defend yourself in front of a judge, and everyone lives another day.

A bunch of previously unknown info came out today.

That's why I asked what I did.

A quick internet search and you should be able to find out...what those new facts are that were stated today.

Or look in my Post #5 above...for some of them.

Except my #6, which apparently...has now changed. :shrug:

[billethkid]

Are we witnessing a trend of guilty by way of crowd pleasing.
Or is a person still entitled to be innocent until proven guilty.
The DA's job is to prosecute. His job is to over charge to be sure there is something left to find guilt on.

And for those who read more than was said into a post or reading between the lines the above does not portend guilt or innocence.

[John41]

definitely justified use of force.. if it happened to a white guy no one would care

[manaboutown]

It is an undoubtedly futile attempt to appease the violent rioting, looting criminal out of control mob. The police could be charged and tried but these charges are ridiculously over the top. When the shooting is found to be justified in a court of law the looting, rioting and other criminal behavior will come back even worse. This is an ill-conceived not well thought out tactic. Those in charge should stand firm but of course they will not which will eventually exacerbate the situation.

The cops involved in the grievous George Floyd homicide should be tried in a court of law but these guys were likely justified. It was a very different situation.

[graciegirl]

And a whole lot of new, disgusting, info coming out...justifying those charges.

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness.

I'm curious to know, if anyone who originally thought this killing was justified...have now changed their minds?

I'm going to go out on a limb here (just kidding, it's not really that hard to predict)...that very few will raise their hands.

I hope, and would be happy...if I'm wrong though.

More to come. :popcorn:

Tasers are powerful and I have read that they can kill. I would not like to think what would happen if someone received a taser barb near their eye. The murder victim had removed the taser from the police officer and shot at him, (twice?) Before that he had violently resisted arrest. He would be alive right this moment if he had stopped when told to stop and didn't fire a strong weapon at a police officer.

Yes he is dead and he did NOT deserve a death sentence. If he were my grandson, I would have told him that he was courting death with his lifestyle, that he had serious financial responsibilities fathering several children, that he would be far better off leaving illegal drugs and controlled substances alone.

I think the backlash to this awful situation will be even worse and more frequent awful situations. I think that having no one to physically stop someone who is bent on harming law enforcement officers will immediately spill over to the general population. I am concerned for those who are no longer strong enough to run fast from trouble or stand up to someone who wants to hurt them or take their money or possessions or steal their car. I think that it is more a lawless issue than it is a race issue. Where do you draw the line when someone will not be detained?? How is that going to work in the scheme of things? You just can't continue to overlook and to overlook what some refer to minor crimes.

[anothersteve]

The murder victim had removed the taser from the police officer and shot at him, (twice?)



First I wouldn't call him a "murder victim".....NOTHING is proved in a court of law yet. And yes the video does show him shooting the taser twice, as one of my previous posts shows. That in my mind shows intent to do harm to the officers, and that is key evidence for a jury.
Steve

[TommyT]

It's election year for the D.A. Paul Howard and he is losing at the polls already. He must win the upcoming runoff to get on the ballot in November so he is doing whatever he can to win votes....... Even if it's wrong !!! :ohdear:

[Kenswing]

It's election year for the D.A. Paul Howard and he is losing at the polls already. He must win the upcoming runoff to get on the ballot in November so he is doing whatever he can to win votes....... Even if it's wrong !!! :ohdear:

Seems like the DA has some of his own legal problems to worry about.. GBI investigating DA Paul Howard over use of nonprofit (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-opens-probe-fulton-paul-howard-over-use-nonprofit-funds/cgSq6UgzmHbCfGNJcxMJ6O/)

The GBI has opened an investigation of Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard and his use of a nonprofit to funnel at least $140,000 in city of Atlanta funds to supplement his salary, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Channel 2 Action News have learned.

The criminal investigation comes at a time when Howard, Fulton’s DA since 1997, is being challenged in the Democratic primary for reelection and is facing allegations of sexual harassment, which he strongly denies.

[anothersteve]

It's election year for the D.A. Paul Howard and he is losing at the polls already. He must win the upcoming runoff to get on the ballot in November so he is doing whatever he can to win votes....... Even if it's wrong !!! :ohdear:

Seems like the DA has some of his own legal problems to worry about.. GBI investigating DA Paul Howard over use of nonprofit (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-opens-probe-fulton-paul-howard-over-use-nonprofit-funds/cgSq6UgzmHbCfGNJcxMJ6O/)


There's always a method to the madness.
Steve

[Kenswing]

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation didn't even know the DA was filing charges today. Why bother to ask them to investigate?
GBI Says Fulton DA Blindsided Agency Amid Investigation in Brooks Case - AllOnGeorgia (https://allongeorgia.com/georgia-state-news/gbi-says-fulton-da-blindsided-agency-amid-investigation-in-brooks-case/)

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation says it was unaware that Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard planned to file charges against the officers involved in the Rayshard Brooks case while the agency was still conducting its investigation.

Approximately an hour after Howard announced the charges Wednesday, the agency posted on social media:

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation was requested by the Atlanta Police Department on Friday night, June 12th, to investigate an officer involved shooting at the Wendy’s Restaurant on University Avenue. We are in the process of conducting this investigation. Although we have made significant progress in the case, we have not completed our work. Our goal in every officer involved shooting case we are requested to review, is to complete a thorough, impartial investigation before we submit the file to the respective District Attorney’s Office.

The GBI was not aware of today’s press conference before it was conducted. We were not consulted on the charges filed by the District Attorney. Despite today’s occurrence, the GBI will complete its mission of completing an impartial and thorough investigation of this incident and we will submit the file, once completed, to the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.

[ColdNoMore]

Sad and pathetic, but not surprising I suppose, that no one seems to have a problem...with these actions taken by the cops charged. :oops:

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. Rolfe also stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder)...who was laying on the ground dying.



Raise your hand...if you see the common denominators. :ohdear:

[Kenswing]

There's always a method to the madness.
Steve

Looks like he thinks he's quite the woman's man too..
Fulton DA facing another harassment lawsuit (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/fulton-slapped-with-another-harassment-lawsuit/vuEoikax2eiBbC4OlNLP4L/)

It's the latest in a string of allegations from women who once worked for the the veteran prosecutor.
Howard has also been accused of 12 public disclosure violations by the state ethics commission. The decision followed reporting by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Channel 2 Action News on discrepancies between personal financial disclosures Howard filed with the state and tax filings submitted to the IRS by a nonprofit he heads.

[anothersteve]

Sad and pathetic, but not surprising I suppose, that no one seems to have a problem...with these actions taken by the cops charged. :oops:





Raise your hand...if you see the common denominators. :ohdear:


Let's just see what comes out in court. That is the American way to justice........isn't it?
Steve

[Kenswing]

Sad and pathetic, but not surprising I suppose, that no one seems to have a problem...with these actions taken by the cops charged. :oops:





Raise your hand...if you see the common denominators. :ohdear:

Nope.. We're just not willing to convict him until he's had his day in court. That is how it is supposed to be..

[Steve9930]

I'm not much of a conspiracy person but something is starting to stink about all of this going on lately.

[ColdNoMore]

A 4 minute video, explaining the charges and showing the evidence for the charges...for those who care about facts. :ho:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnr1CG8tvLc

[coffeebean]

definitely justified use of force.. if it happened to a white guy no one would care

THAT is what infuriates me!

[Kenswing]

A 4 minute video, explaining the charges and showing the evidence for the charges...for those who care about facts. :ho:

So because charges have been filed that makes him automatically guilty? The charges amount to nothing but opening arguments. The Defense still get their chance to present their case. Why can't you understand that? Or are you just being obtuse?

[anothersteve]

A 4 minute video, explaining the charges and showing the evidence for the charges...for those who care about facts. :ho:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnr1CG8tvLc


That's it??? So the investigation is over. What's with the "photograph" of the kick? That is obviously taken from a video? Why not show the whole video. This is in my opinion is a **** poor case.
Again, leave it to the jury.
Steve

[B767drvr]

So because charges have been filed that makes him automatically guilty? The charges amount to nothing but opening arguments. The Defense still get their chance to present their case. Why can't you understand that? Or are you just being obtuse?

I've come to the realization that some people truly see the world differently. They firmly believe they see "the truth" and the rest of us don't. (I'm parsing my words here... almost choking.)

I can read history books and read about the death, poverty, starvation, and destruction that results from their ideas, but to them, they see rainbows, unicorns and utopia... all the while decrying the lunacy of our selfish (and apparently, racist) beliefs.

[Kerry Azz]

To stop this foolishness just have the legal fee come out of the police pension fund. Maybe then they’ll do the right thing and serve and protect.

[ColdNoMore]

So because charges have been filed that makes him automatically guilty? The charges amount to nothing but opening arguments. The Defense still get their chance to present their case. Why can't you understand that? Or are you just being obtuse?
///

I just read the Admin's post/notice to all members, so in that vein and in the spirit of what they're trying to do...I've chosen to delete my response. :wave:


NOTICE ALL REGISTERED USERS (poke here) (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/notice-all-registered-users-admin-307861/#post1786295)

Dear TOTV users,

Talk of The Villages was originally created as a forum for Villagers to come together easily, and discuss happenings across the town and beyond. However, in recent months, we have seen a surge of posts that violate our site guidelines, and have impacted the general mood across the forum.

Let us remind you that posting about politics is strictly forbidden. This includes the mention of political parties, political individuals, or any political topics. Even with warnings and reminders of this rule, users continue to post about politics. We will now begin giving out one week temporary bans to any user who violates this rule. If users continue to defy this rule, longer or even permanent bans will be given.

In addition, discussion on TOTV should remain kind and respectful. Negatively directed posts are not allowed. Negative posts directed at other users will be deleted, and any user who continues to disregard this rule will be subjected to a temporary ban.

We understand that during these tumultuous times, it is cathartic to come to the forum and discuss everything happening on the news and in our community. We encourage open discussion, and welcome everyone with different backgrounds and viewpoints. To reflect this, we have decided to create a new sub-forum dedicated solely to current events and news. On this side of the forum, users will be able to discuss everything happening in the world, and those who do not wish to participate, can easily ignore this sub-forum. This sub-forum will still adhere to site guidelines, and will be moderated according to these rules. This means there will still be no political discussion allowed. All we ask from our users is respect towards each other, regardless of differing opinions, and respect towards our site guidelines.

Lastly, please note that the General Discussions Forum is meant for topics related to The Villages, Florida. This includes topics related to buying in the area, and for things related to living in The Villages. The New Members Forum is meant for new members to the site who wish to introduce themselves to everyone on the forum. If you post a topic that does not fit these descriptions, your post will be moved to the correct forum.

[ColdNoMore]

To stop this foolishness just have the legal fee come out of the police pension fund. Maybe then they’ll do the right thing and serve and protect.
:22yikes:


Now THAT would be very interesting to watch.


Add laws limiting the "qualified immunity" for cops and I'll bet things...WOULD change. :thumbup:

[B767drvr]

To stop this foolishness just have the legal fee come out of the police pension fund. Maybe then they’ll do the right thing and serve and protect.

Actually, I was thinking just THE OPPOSITE! The estate of Mr. Brooks should have to pay for the mess HE CREATED by driving while intoxicated, assaulting two police officers (WITHOUT PROVOCATION!), stealing and then firing a taser at a police officer, and all the aftermath and trauma he caused law enforcement. What are we up to... 4 felonies, at least for Mr. Brooks? Wow... doesn't sound like he was making good choices.

[B767drvr]

Here's a crazy idea... OBEY THE LAW and LAW ENFORCEMENT when they come to clean up the mess you (Mr. Brooks) created.

[anothersteve]

Actually, I was thinking just THE OPPOSITE! The estate of Mr. Brooks should have to pay for the mess HE CREATED by driving while intoxicated, assaulting two police officers (WITHOUT PROVOCATION!), stealing and then firing a taser at a police officer, and all the aftermath and trauma he caused law enforcement.

Justice is pretty crazy huh?
Steve

[B767drvr]

Justice is pretty crazy huh?
Steve

Sure is. I honestly can't imagine why any sane individual would enter law enforcement today, or continue unless close to retirement, given all the liability for split-second decisions while being physically attacked/life threatened by law-breakers. We pay these people poorly, give them minimal training, a pat on the back, and wish them "good luck" dealing day in and day out with the worst of humanity.

[anothersteve]

I'm hearing word that in one police precinct in Atlanta, all the officers are calling in sick. Geez....I hope they get better.
Steve

[anothersteve]

Well they want to defund the police

Search Twitter - Atlanta pd (https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Atlanta%20pd&src=typed_query)

Steve

[mtdjed]

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

Calling a bald person a Skinhead looking cop is derogatory. It is obviously an attempt to associate inappropriately. Isn't this almost the same as being racist. As a bald person, I feel unjustly accused. Why would someone make that association unless they were unfairly attempting to convict? Makes one suspect of such bias.

[manaboutown]

Actually, I was thinking just THE OPPOSITE! The estate of Mr. Brooks should have to pay for the mess HE CREATED by driving while intoxicated, assaulting two police officers (WITHOUT PROVOCATION!), stealing and then firing a taser at a police officer, and all the aftermath and trauma he caused law enforcement. What are we up to... 4 felonies, at least for Mr. Brooks? Wow... doesn't sound like he was making good choices.

What estate? He was a loser, a child abuser and career criminal.

[manaboutown]

Seems like the DA has some of his own legal problems to worry about.. GBI investigating DA Paul Howard over use of nonprofit (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-opens-probe-fulton-paul-howard-over-use-nonprofit-funds/cgSq6UgzmHbCfGNJcxMJ6O/)

The DA is of questionable character at best. He should be disbarred and locked up!

[B767drvr]

What estate? He was a loser, a child abuser and career criminal.

Yeah... I was being generous.

Somehow, the innocent taxpayer will have to pay for the mess Mr. Brooks chose to create. :ohdear:

[jedalton]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?
In Georgia a taser is a deadly threat

[bluecenturian]

You are so ignorant to make such a statement when you are completely uniformed. You are not prevued to Any if the info that is being investigated so why not leave it up to the expert investigators.

But here is some issues to consider.

The DA is under investigation for stealing money, in an election year.

GBI was totally unaware if the announcement of the charges since they have not completed their investigation nor submitted their report to the DA.

Georgia law doesn’t not allow a felony arrest warrant to be drawn up unless the DA convened a grand jury. No grand jury has been convened however, he issued warrants for the cops.

The officer that is a state witness is false. His attorney has said he is answering questions however, he has not said he is a state witness.

There has not been any video of the officer “kicking” the criminal. They have a still image that show his leg bent and they are assuming he kicked him.

The officers didn’t give aid, false. Body camera shows them doing CPR.

The DA just said 2 weeks ago in another case that a taser is a “deadly weapon” under Georgia law. Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses SS 16-11-127.1 | FindLaw (https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-11-127-1.html)

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that a police Officer can shoot a fleeing felon if he believes he can cause death or serious bodily injury. The criminal fired a taser toward the officer which was in the vicinity of the officers head, that’s serious physical injury in every state.

Tennessee v. Garner :: 471 U.S. 1 (1985) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/)

Stop trying to create dissection. It is irresponsible and disgraceful.

[riley2011]

He shouldn’t have resisted arrest, shouldn’t have gotten into a fight, shouldn’t have stolen the taser and shouldn’t have fired it at the cops. And he shouldn’t have been driving drunk which is what started it all in the first place.

[stadry]

there is no atlanta atty genl - there is a city atty + a county district atty w/jurisdiction - fulton cty - he's likely got political aspirations to be governor someday as evidenced by his usual quik responses & ill-timed remarks
under ga law, possession of a stun gun is a felony - this followed the assault against the police officer,,, under ga law, police response was justified,,, policing brass is another issue & probably warrants internal charges rather than criminal
blame false reporting for the testifying issue
i don't agree w/overcharging which is usually a suckup action to appease loud voices,,, burning wendy's thereby displacing over 40 worker's jobs, depriving the neighborhood of a food source, & committing arson is idiotic,,, the insurance claim, if any, will be denied due to the policy's civil unrest clause

[LucyP]

It’s been justified! Cops follow procedures. I have details contact me .

[Windguy]

Seems like a common thread to all of these deaths is NOT COOPERATING with the police. Quit attacking cops
First off, I think most minorities are terrified of cops and that sheer terror takes over and they do irrational things.

I’ve found that if there’s a bee or a hornet buzzing around, they never attack me if I stay calm and don’t swat at them. Yet I’ve seen people who are allergic to stings swatting away at them and trying to run away. These behaviors are a signal to the bees that you are a threat and they defend themselves. It’s interesting how people can be so terrified that they do the worst possible thing.

Please try to put yourself in the shoes of minorities who live their lives in terror. I know it’s easy to be judgmental because you’ve never experienced what they go through, but we all need to try to understand.

[bluecenturian]

Atlanta has 6 zones, most cops in 4 of the 6 zones took a city approved mental health day. Those that showed up did each call by the book. 2-3 hours each. The city had a backlog of 673 calls at its highest point. Surrounding agencies were unable to respond to the city because it would have left their areas of responsibilities unstaffed. The Georgia state police refused to respond because their training is specific to traffic related issues and they are not trained to handle calls for service that a local agency is responsible for.

This is just a preview of what will happen when you define the police. You will not get help for a significant time due to lack of staffing.

I'm hearing word that in one police precinct in Atlanta, all the officers are calling in sick. Geez....I hope they get better.
Steve

[kenoc7]

Seems like a common thread to all of these deaths is NOT COOPERATING with the police. Quit attacking cops, save your story for the judge, and everyone lives. There are approximately 60 MILLION interactions per year between police and civilians (over 16). Obviously, lots of people are cooperating, but some CHOOSE TO NOT COOPERATE. I wonder why?
Whataboutism at its worst. No one should be shot in the back when running away.

[GoodLife]

not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon

Video of the Atlanta DA stating "a taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law"

Twitter (https://twitter.com/i/status/1273402121858187264)

According to Amnesty International 291 people have been killed by tasers

84675

[kenoc7]

I honestly don't know the legal particulars of this shooting. Some cops say legal, others say no. I've heard "lawful but awful".

Common sense dictates that if you drive drunk, pass out in a fast-food drive-thru line, attack/physically assault and overpower TWO cops, then steal one of the cop's tasers and fire it at him... to a large extent, you own what comes your way.

Just watched the video again and the police were very cordial. Mr. Brooks is the one who initiated and attacked the cops. He threw two punches at one of the officers. The attacked officer responded by firing his taser at Mr. Brooks. In what world is it okay to physically attack a police officer? Why is anyone possibly defending Mr. Brook's action?

Like I said before... it's not a difficult concept - cooperate with the police, defend yourself in front of a judge, and everyone lives another day.
Do you understand why he resisted being handcuffed? He was turning his life around but was on probation and being arrested would send him back to jail. Why did they have to cuff him? He was cordial and was no threat to anyone, just let him walk home.

[greenflash245]

maybe trip and fall down a flight of stairs. save lot of problems

[kenoc7]

definitely justified use of force.. if it happened to a white guy no one would care
How can you justify shooting someone in the back twice when they are running away? Definitely unjustified - black, white or purple.

[kenoc7]

It is an undoubtedly futile attempt to appease the violent rioting, looting criminal out of control mob. The police could be charged and tried but these charges are ridiculously over the top. When the shooting is found to be justified in a court of law the looting, rioting and other criminal behavior will come back even worse. This is an ill-conceived not well thought out tactic. Those in charge should stand firm but of course they will not which will eventually exacerbate the situation.

The cops involved in the grievous George Floyd homicide should be tried in a court of law but these guys were likely justified. It was a very different situation.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine

You need to take note of your own quote. It isn't reasonable to suggest that shooting someone twice in the back is justified.

[Girlcopper]

Well, scratch my #6 above...in Post #5. :oops:

It sounds like Brosnan is NOT going to be cooperating.

I wonder what happened? :confused:
Nothing happened. It was fake news as usual just as alot of the facts of this scenario are.
A taser isnt a deadly weapon in itself BUT it could disable the cop giving the suspect the opportunity to take his gun.
Yes, he was shot in the back. He turned, pointed the taser at the cop and as the cop took aim on him, he turned to run.
Suspect had a taser and was running towards people with children in the area who could have gotten hurt.
Yes, the cop did stand on his shoulder until he kicked the gun away from his reach. No way of knowing if the suspect would reach for it again.
I didnt see any video where a cop kicked him in the head. And I watched them all.
Bottom line. Cooperate and everyone goes home happy.

[oldtimes]

So innocent until proven guilty has been replaced with guilty by social media. What's next do we bring back lynching?

[44Apple]

Seeing how many police officers have cut and run lately is something else. I don't know which is worse, those that quit individually or those who do it "en masse" to leverage their power. These people took an oath and the realization that they can't hack it when their communities really need them to step up, be responsive and accountable is pathetic. Almost makes me wonder if people are quitting because they realize they finally WILL be held accountable and they won't be able to get away with half the stuff they've done in the past.

[bmit16]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?
Y
If not...why not?

You are quoting the alleged facts the DA outlined. They are not actually factual. Number 1, the other officer has not agreed to be a states witness, per his attorney this morning. #2 the DA himself said 2 weeks ago the tazer is a deadly weapon. There are more contradictions to his case but, I think you should wait until court to pass judgement. For those of you who think all these cases are cut and dry, you will find out in the end, that they will not result in the convictions people want because evidence is not being presented by the media that does not favor their agenda. Even the George Floyd case is going to be tough to convict because of evidence not being reported about policy, training and unseen footage. Watch and see!

[RoadToad]

Seeing how many police officers have cut and run lately is something else. I don't know which is worse, those that quit individually or those who do it "en masse" to leverage their power. These people took an oath and the realization that they can't hack it when their communities really need them to step up, be responsive and accountable is pathetic. Almost makes me wonder if people are quitting because they realize they finally WILL be held accountable and they won't be able to get away with half the stuff they've done in the past.

No, they are quitting because they realize they are in a lose-lose situation.
Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

[ColdNoMore]

Nothing happened. It was fake news as usual just as alot of the facts of this scenario are.
A taser isnt a deadly weapon in itself BUT it could disable the cop giving the suspect the opportunity to take his gun.
Yes, he was shot in the back. He turned, pointed the taser at the cop and as the cop took aim on him, he turned to run.
Suspect had a taser and was running towards people with children in the area who could have gotten hurt.
Yes, the cop did stand on his shoulder until he kicked the gun away from his reach. No way of knowing if the suspect would reach for it again.
I didnt see any video where a cop kicked him in the head. And I watched them all.
Bottom line. Cooperate and everyone goes home happy.

"Fake news as usual?" :oops:

When it was the DA that was the one that said it and the media simply reported...exactly what HE said? :ohdear:

And great point about other people being around and could have been hurt, even though absolutely nothing shows that he was..."running towards people with children in the area."

Which, since he was running away, the cops knew who he was, where he lived (because they had his driver's license) and had his car, makes even a stronger case...for just letting him run and pick him up later.

As for the video of Brooks being kicked (I don't recall anyone saying it was "in the head"), apparently you didn't watch ALL of the videos. Depending on what you may use for a news source...not surprising.

Prosecutor: Officer kicked Rayshard Brooks after shooting him twice in the back (https://fox8.com/news/prosecutor-officer-kicked-rayshard-brooks-after-shooting-him-twice-in-the-back/)

Start around 4:00 on the first video. :ho:

[donassaid]

The fact remains that it was a good stop and both cops went by the book. They were polite, considerate and professional until they were both assaulted by Brooks and had a weapon taken away. Did Brooks deserve to be shot? Probably not but I will not judge the motivation of policemen who have to make life and death judgement calls in the heat of the moment. One fact is indisputable. Rayshard Brioks would be alive today if he hadn't resisted arrest so let's quit with the martyrdom complex and out the blame where it belongs. In too many instances, black perps are shot or killed in the course of resisting police or running away. Should be a simple solution. If you are arrested, regardless of your skin color or the skin color of the arresting officer, do not resist, do not assault a police officer and you may live to see your day in court.

[ColdNoMore]

Seeing how many police officers have cut and run lately is something else. I don't know which is worse, those that quit individually or those who do it "en masse" to leverage their power. These people took an oath and the realization that they can't hack it when their communities really need them to step up, be responsive and accountable is pathetic.

Almost makes me wonder if people are quitting because they realize they finally WILL be held accountable and they won't be able to get away with half the stuff they've done in the past.


I wonder about the same thing. :ohdear:


.

[ColdNoMore]

The fact remains that it was a good stop and both cops went by the book. They were polite, considerate and professional until they were both assaulted by Brooks and had a weapon taken away. Did Brooks deserve to be shot? Probably not but I will not judge the motivation of policemen who have to make life and death judgement calls in the heat of the moment. One fact is indisputable. Rayshard Brioks would be alive today if he hadn't resisted arrest so let's quit with the martyrdom complex and out the blame where it belongs. In too many instances, black perps are shot or killed in the course of resisting police or running away. Should be a simple solution. If you are arrested, regardless of your skin color or the skin color of the arresting officer, do not resist, do not assault a police officer and you may live to see your day in court.

He would also be alive, if the cop hadn't shot him twice in the back...and they simply picked him up later.

[PugMom]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?

just my opinion, but i DO think it was wrong to shoot the man, & i felt it was wrong @ the time. the suspect was being polite & calm. his story of being @ a birthday dinner jibes because he is wearing a collared shirt & slacks. yes, he was impaired, but once out of the car talking to cops u can see he is almost frightened if by reading body language. who can blame him? for weeks he's been seeing all kinds of events in the news, & with a buzz on it 's a bit tougher to analyze things correctly. here's where de-escalation may have been applied?? i think the cop freaked when ray ran & it was prob almost reflex to respond in the way he was trained. idk if this is true, but 1 report said the cop was standing on rays shoulders after being shot in the back 3 times. does anyone really think after being shot in the back 3 times a person can still have the ability to escape? if so, how far could he get before dying where he lay? looks like a change of policy is on order.

[George Page]

In response to the initial question,

“has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?”

I hope no one has made up their mind! But, obviously, most of you have. There are precious few potential fair minded juror among you.

[dewilson58]

The second officer fired & shot the thug after he heard a gun shot & saw a flash (even tho it was the taser) and feared for his life and his partner's life.


Will see how this plays out.

[dewilson58]

I hope no one has made up their mind! But, obviously, most of you have. There are precious few potential fair minded juror among you.


:coolsmiley:


innocent until proven

[Russp]

The facts quoted are from a DA trying to keep his job and playing to the protesters. It’s easy to say what you would do, but you are not out there in real time trying to go home at night, or dealing with a guy not wanting to go BACK to jail. The political attitude today is throw the lowest on the ladder to the wolf’s.

[Bikeracer2009]

I don't agree that if a fleeing criminal is shooting at a police officer that the police officer can't defend himself because his shots would strike the criminal in the back. If someone is running away they aren't going to turn and face you with their chest to fire their weapon, they're simply going to turn enough to get their arm pointing behind them and they don't care about aiming since they don't care what they hit. So, what's a police officer to do? Get shot at until he can shoot at the front on the shooter? Is getting shot at with a taser by a drunk criminal an acceptable risk and therefore deadly force is not warranted?

I believe like most of the world that George Floyd was murdered. He was a criminal but he didn't deserve a death sentence by a hate filled cop.

I support BLM and attempts to rid our world of racism. I don't support violence or fighting with police. I try to understand the fear and anxiety minorities have with police and sympathize with their argument.

I've seen first hand racism here in TV. I also see the view point of middle class whites as being out of touch with the views of low income minorities. It's as simple as follow the rules and the facts are the facts to them.

It's difficult to argue against facts and logic with emotions so both sides can't find support for their views since their point of reference is different.

I think we'll see good cops walk away from their job or emotionally change how they feel about it and both are not the goal of police reform? Will cops that stay decide that if a black suspect resists in any way they're just going to step back and let the guy do whatever he wants? Let society deal with the problem they created? Apathy and self preservation may replace honor and duty?

I don't have the answers but I bet things get worse before they get better. I hope I'm wrong.

[Scorpyo]

And a whole lot of new, disgusting, info coming out...justifying those charges.

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness.

I'm curious to know, if anyone who originally thought this killing was justified...have now changed their minds?

I'm going to go out on a limb here (just kidding, it's not really that hard to predict)...that very few will raise their hands.

I hope, and would be happy...if I'm wrong though.

More to come. :popcorn:
You’re doing what you are accusing the cop of doing. Pulling the trigger too quick. If we have learned anything it’s the story changes not by the day but by the minute. I’m in Alpharetta Georgia (just outside of Atlanta) right now. The non shooting cops attorney was on last night. It is a lie when they said he flipped on the other cop. Also they showed a body cam where the cop is begging the perp to breathe and is giving him CPR. Anyone who believes that mob controlled, up for re-election corrupted DA should come see me. I have a bridge to sell them.

[rmagee]

Comply or die, so simple

[Pegasusprt]

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness. Fake News

[ColdNoMore]

You’re doing what you are accusing the cop of doing. Pulling the trigger too quick. If we have learned anything it’s the story changes not by the day but by the minute. I’m in Alpharetta Georgia (just outside of Atlanta) right now. The non shooting cops attorney was on last night. It is a lie when they said he flipped on the other cop. Also they showed a body cam where the cop is begging the perp to breathe and is giving him CPR. Anyone who believes that mob controlled, up for re-election corrupted DA should come see me. I have a bridge to sell them.

Proof exists that the CPR was over 2 minutes after he was shot... and also after being kicked/stood on.

Context is everything. :ohdear:

[ColdNoMore]

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness. Fake News

Wrong.

The DA is the one that said it in the press conference...outlining the charges.

The "news" reported it correctly.

Obviously though, someone got to the cop that didn't shoot...and he changed his mind.

I wonder who in the world...that could be? :ohdear:

[graciegirl]

"Victim blaming and denigration'... is sadly not new. :oops:

It's often used (paraphrasing) to justify rape, sexual assault or other violent actions, because; "they weren't exactly virgins," "they were dressed provocatively" or "they were a prostitute, so they should expect to get beaten up" :ohdear:

No way anyone could convince me, or other decent American citizens, that in this particular case the actions of Brooks...deserved a judge, jury and execution...by a cop.

Particularly after seeing the cops response (kicking/standing on), after he was already on the ground dying from being shot twice in the back...and BEFORE attempting to render any medical aid.

Even in the old wild, wild, west, there was a code...that you don't shoot someone in the back, or kick them when they're down.


The question is this; Is victim blaming and denigration as bad or the same or worse than felony false imprisonment and felony credit card fraud?

If you were the dad, Which of the two would you wish for your son???

[anothersteve]

Wrong.

Obviously though, someone got to the cop that didn't shoot...and he changed his mind.

:ohdear:

Conjecture.
Steve

[ColdNoMore]

The question is this; Is victim blaming and denigration as bad or the same or worse than felony false imprisonment and felony credit card fraud?

If you were the dad, Which of the two would you wish for your son???

A total 'false choice fallacy.' :oops:

What I would want, is the reason my son was killed in a situation that didn't warrant it...REGARDLESS of what he had done in the past.

Let the sentencing, if any, determine how his past should affect...the current situation.

Here's a question for you...along that same false premise.

Would you blame your daughter/granddaughter if she was raped/sexually assaulted at a party, where she had been drinking...and had worn skimpy clothes?

Would that have been their fault and the perp...should be excused?

[Scorpyo]

Proof exists that the CPR was over 2 minutes after he was shot... and also after being kicked/stood on.

Context is everything. :ohdear:
Whose proof? The process in GA is that when there’s a police shooting local police back off and the GBI takes over. The DA waits to get the results of the GBIs investigation before proceeding. This did not happen, why? If you want facts here’s some for you. The black DA is up for re-election. It is tightly contested. He’s also under investigation for corruption. So how does he try to get re-elected? He’s black. He’s in Fulton County, which is largely black. What better way to pacify and get the black mob on his side than to charge and convict a white cop without the required GBI investigation. Way higher number of sick calls from Atlanta police today. So it begins.

[newgirl]

That is because of the union and the fact that unless the exact same crime happened exactly the same way in the same area and the cop has been proven guilty( impossible since it is impossible for exact anything to happen twice) then they are immune from prosecution. A case where a man ran into the woods ( no gun)and a cop shot him in the back when he fell was not charged because that had not happened before exactly that way, then a man ran ( no gun) and fell in a ditch and the cop shot him in the back a few months later same area, because one was shot in the woods, one in a ditch meant that no charges were filed toward either cop for what was out and out cold blooded intentional murder . Only difference was location of the fall.
Please watch Patriot Act - policing on utube or Netflix . It will terrify you once to see the documents proving that convicting or suing a cop is damn near impossible and if you get lucky and charges are made, cops do not get any real punishment for murder or abuse. Victims always get victimized over and over... Time for huge changes!

[graciegirl]

A total 'false choice fallacy.' :oops:

What I would want, is the reason my son was killed in a situation that didn't warrant it...REGARDLESS of what he had done in the past.

Let the sentencing, if any, determine how his past should affect...the current situation.

Here's a question for you...along that same false premise.

Would you blame your daughter/granddaughter if she was raped/sexually assaulted at a party, where she had been drinking...and had worn skimpy clothes?

Would that have been their fault and the perp...should be excused?

We Catholics always called that "putting yourself in the near occasion of sin". We Germans called this getting yourself in big trouble for not using your head. I would have been plenty upset and damn mad at her for sure. This is all about teaching your kids about decision making. We talked a hell of a lot in our family about drinking and driving and drinking and sex. We all know how lives can be ruined forever with drinking and sex, both genders..........actually all genders.....

My kids heard three things over and over and over............

Don't drink and drive (or have sex)
Don't have unprotected sex.
Save your money.

They all wait at the door as they say good bye even now, because I still say it.

[Mardarlowe]

Raising my hand. Self defense

[manaboutown]

This inept clown of a DA has a questionable history. GBI investigating DA Paul Howard over use of nonprofit (https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-opens-probe-fulton-paul-howard-over-use-nonprofit-funds/cgSq6UgzmHbCfGNJcxMJ6O/)

[GoodLife]

Imagine being so naïve that you think these officers are being charged "in the name of justice."

[Lisa C]

Unfortunately, I see a future in which you will be hard pressed to find good dedicated law enforcement officers who will WANT to wear a badge

[airstreamingypsy]

Seems like a common thread to all of these deaths is NOT COOPERATING with the police. Quit attacking cops, save your story for the judge, and everyone lives. There are approximately 60 MILLION interactions per year between police and civilians (over 16). Obviously, lots of people are cooperating, but some CHOOSE TO NOT COOPERATE. I wonder why?

So, you think not cooperating is a capital offense and the police are justified to shoot someone in the back to prove it?

[billethkid]

Another result of the current events involving police is the police will just let some crimes play out instead of actionable prevention.

Criminals will become more emboldened knowing the police will not intervene.

New rules of engagement.......don't!!

[Indydealmaker]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?

Diatribe from a person with history with law enforcement?

[Steve9930]

Bottom line: The DA is over charging this case. He is using it for his re-election. It will either be a hung jury or an Acquittal. Atlanta will burn. End of story. Time to move on.

[Mikenbats66]

Of you always know that every news story is totally accurate and all the facts are known ?
Then you must be
Living in the Disney land

[Scorpyo]

Of you always know that every news story is totally accurate and all the facts are known ?
Then you must be
Living in the Disney land
You make this very difficult for me. One of my favorite sayings is: Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes? I can't use it now because you're right - don't believe your lying eyes. Oh my, now I'm really confused.:1rotfl:

[Luisa]

Prosecutor in case on prior video said taser is deadly. Incapacitating officer gives assailant opportunity to use officers gun. Given the facts that the assailant had already assaulted officers and fired taser at officer showed a serious threat.

[Ramone]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?
And the victim was aggressively fighting the cuffs when he is found way over the limit drunk, he punched one officer in face, he stole a stun gun and used it against those trying peacefully to cuff him. He was punching all the way till he ran off. When he turned with weapon pointing at police, he was shot, which is in police training and a split second decision. In that split second decision do police know if it is a stun gun or real one he had on him, police had not frisked him yet.

[EviesGP]

Like others on this forum, I have close relatives in Law Enforcement, and I also worked with them for 10yrs of my life. It's a tough life, and often times, thankless. I can't imagine how they're going to do their jobs after all this? Yes, there are some bad apples, but predominantly, those are rare. I worked with some that were not great cops, and thankfully no longer in the business. All these deaths are tragic, but the victims are hardly innocent lambs in these examples. These officers were called to the scene(s) of these situations. For some to say, just let them walk home, or whatever? Really? Perhaps when you're the victim of a crime, I'd like to see the look on your face, when the officer decides to just let the suspect walk? Like BTK said, just watch what happens if this thinking continues...Sad.
Oh, and I only have one child in this world, and it's a girl(wonderful young lady and mother now). To liken a scantily clad women getting raped, to a person being detained/arrested for committing a crime, is not at all related?!

[B767drvr]

Do you understand why he resisted being handcuffed? He was turning his life around but was on probation and being arrested would send him back to jail. Why did they have to cuff him? He was cordial and was no threat to anyone, just let him walk home.


Since you asked...

"Turning his life around?" Driving while intoxicated and passing out while idling in a restaurant drive-thru is turning one's life around? In most, perhaps all states, drunk driving is a FELONY. Choosing to commit a felony is the opposite of "turning one's life around". We all make choices.

After testing over the limit for drunk driving, the officer made the decision to ARREST Mr. Brooks. For the officers' safety, I believe it's standard procedure to handcuff everyone while under arrest and being transported.

Let him go? Nope, that's not how it works when you've committed a felony. "Law enforcement" officers are dispatched to "enforce" the law and take the law breaker into custody.

[Dilligas]

Seeing how many police officers have cut and run lately is something else. I don't know which is worse, those that quit individually or those who do it "en masse" to leverage their power. These people took an oath and the realization that they can't hack it when their communities really need them to step up, be responsive and accountable is pathetic. Almost makes me wonder if people are quitting because they realize they finally WILL be held accountable and they won't be able to get away with half the stuff they've done in the past.
I am sure the Atlanta Police are hiring.....are you interested? The Police officers are "... cut and run ... " lately because they are walking around with a target on their back and mass & social media blocking them from doing their jobs. Should this cop had fired at the running futive?.....maybe not.....they knew who he was, where he lived and had his car....so they could have gone to his home and arrested him there. They don't chase criminals who are speeding away in a car (to avoid other citizens being hurt from the chase) unless the criminal is a danger to society. This guy did not fit that description.... Yes he was vastly wrong to resist, fight, steal the taser, and run away....but could the cops have chased him down (remember he was drunk, so probably not to speedy) and subdued him with a better outcome? The jury will have to decide....but not the public through mass and social media.

[GoodLife]

I wonder what the slogan will be for this one.

"Hands up I've got your taser"

[Rosebud1949]

Well Atlanta burning will not be the first time

[Scorpyo]

Since you asked...

"Turning his life around?" Driving while intoxicated and passing out while idling in a restaurant drive-thru is turning one's life around? In most, perhaps all states, drunk driving is a FELONY. Choosing to commit a felony is the opposite of "turning one's life around". We all make choices.

After testing over the limit for drunk driving, the officer made the decision to ARREST Mr. Brooks. For the officers' safety, I believe it's standard procedure to handcuff everyone while under arrest and being transported.

Let him go? Nope, that's not how it works when you've committed a felony. "Law enforcement" officers are dispatched to "enforce" the law and take the law breaker into custody.
I agree with everything you wrote except for the part where you said the officer “made” the decision to arrest. Actually it was not a decision, it was a requirement. He blew over the limit. If the cop let him go he could lose his job. What many people don’t understand is that there are hundreds of thousands of families that have suffered extreme grief due to losing a loved one due to impaired driving. So cops take DUIs very seriously. For those who may want to challenge my hundreds of thousands number do the math. 40,000 to 60,000 deaths per year. Duh, how many years to make hundreds? 50? 100? How about 2 to get over 100,000. BTW I am a certified DUI instructor, thus my passion.

[Buckeye Bob]

And a whole lot of new, disgusting, info coming out...justifying those charges.

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness.

I'm curious to know, if anyone who originally thought this killing was justified...have now changed their minds?

I'm going to go out on a limb here (just kidding, it's not really that hard to predict)...that very few will raise their hands.

I hope, and would be happy...if I'm wrong though.

More to come. :popcorn:


The charges are premature; a complete investigation hasn't been completed. The prosecutor involved is up for reelection.

[theruizs]

Well, Ted Williams, a black, former D.C. homicide detective, and criminal attorney has already blasted the Atlanta Attorney General for overcharging the case. He thinks it will be difficult to convict the officer.

Often the most grievous charges are filed, but then at trial the jury is allowed multiple choices, varying degrees of guilt.

[ColdNoMore]

Atlanta Police Walk Out over Murder Charge as Mayor Admits Morale is ‘Down Tenfold’ (https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-police-walk-over-murder-125613964.html)

“We concluded that Mr. Brooks was running away at the time that the shot was fired,” the district attorney said.

Howard also told reporters that the taser had already been discharged twice, rendering it unusable, and said the officers would have known that.

Howard added that Rolfe’s former partner Devin Brosnan, who was also at the scene where Brooks was shot, would testify against his former partner.

Howard said that after Brooks was shot in the back by Rolfe while fleeing arrest, Rolfe kicked him and Brosnan stood on his shoulders.

“There is an Atlanta policy that requires that the officers have to provide timely medical attention to Mr. Brooks, to anyone who is injured,” Howard said.

“But after Mr. Brooks was shot, for a period of two minutes and 12 seconds, there was no medical attention applied to Mr. Brooks.”

But Brosnan’s attorney Don Samuel denied Howard’s account of events, saying his client had not agreed to be the state’s witness and did nothing wrong.

And yes, if you take the time to read the entire article, you can see that it is balanced...and also includes criticism of the DA. :ho:


.

[mikemalloy]

Many of the comments here remind me of the disgusting comments made by the Duke University faculty addressed at the lacrosse teams members who were railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor. They also mirror the attitude of thousands who wore "Hands up Don't shoot" shirts after Michael Brown was killed while, according to witnesses he tried to take the gun of police officer Darren Wilson. Things haven't changed in 2,000 years, the crowd still wants Barabbas.

[theruizs]

Ok, the man was not without fault, perhaps several faults. But I don’t see where any of them merited a death sentence, even pointing the taser while running was a pretty low level threat. Did it really warrant death? Perhaps the officer’s reactions can be understood in context of his training or lack of it, so some consideration for that should be shown. Whatever the case, do we really want police officers acting as judge, jury, and executioner? Kind of sounds Judge Dreddish. There is clearly a need for more extensive training of officers on how to handle these situations. If they had let this guy run off they could have caught up to him pretty quickly later. They had his car and his identity, he was not going to get away for long.

[sloanst]

I don't get the killing at all. The police had the guy's car, they had his ID and the results of the Breathalyzer. So he runs, so what. Every cop car has a load speaker. Let him run. Then announce over that load speaker the laws he is breaking and that he will likely spend time behind bars for resisting arrest, assault, evading and eluding, etc. Announce that he will be facing SWAT on the next encounter. Announce that if he comes back its a simple DUI ticket, a night in jail and a day in court, not prison time away from his family. We need to seriously rethink how handle these situations. The police need to be trained. The PUBLIC also needs to be trained as well that you can resist arrest, assault, elude but that next confrontation will be with a lot more people and there will be time in prison. This can not be a one way solution.

[ColdNoMore]

Ok, the man was not without fault, perhaps several faults. But I don’t see where any of them merited a death sentence, even pointing the taser while running was a pretty low level threat. Did it really warrant death? Perhaps the officer’s reactions can be understood in context of his training or lack of it, so some consideration for that should be shown. Whatever the case, do we really want police officers acting as judge, jury, and executioner? Kind of sounds Judge Dreddish. There is clearly a need for more extensive training of officers on how to handle these situations. If they had let this guy run off they could have caught up to him pretty quickly later. They had his car and his identity, he was not going to get away for long.
:thumbup:


I would add that in addition to "more extensive training," a more robust vetting program (including psychological testing) prior to hiring and regular "mental checkups" after hiring...would go a long way in mitigating these types of incidents. :ho:

[Cybersprings]

Seeing how many police officers have cut and run lately is something else. I don't know which is worse, those that quit individually or those who do it "en masse" to leverage their power. These people took an oath and the realization that they can't hack it when their communities really need them to step up, be responsive and accountable is pathetic. Almost makes me wonder if people are quitting because they realize they finally WILL be held accountable and they won't be able to get away with half the stuff they've done in the past.

Makes me wonder if a person who would make these type of accusations has ever signed up to risk their life for others, only to have the people they are protecting attack their character and split second decisions from the safety ( provided by them) of their computer chairs.

[Scorpyo]

Bottom line: The DA is over charging this case. He is using it for his re-election. It will either be a hung jury or an Acquittal. Atlanta will burn. End of story. Time to move on.
Yep. Typical case of Ready Shoot Aim.

[jimjamuser]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?
I thought that the kicking and standing-on were particularly bad. I wonder if he had a pulse BEFORE the kicking and the delays? Have Not heard that answered.

[Scorpyo]

Like others on this forum, I have close relatives in Law Enforcement, and I also worked with them for 10yrs of my life. It's a tough life, and often times, thankless. I can't imagine how they're going to do their jobs after all this? Yes, there are some bad apples, but predominantly, those are rare. I worked with some that were not great cops, and thankfully no longer in the business. All these deaths are tragic, but the victims are hardly innocent lambs in these examples. These officers were called to the scene(s) of these situations. For some to say, just let them walk home, or whatever? Really? Perhaps when you're the victim of a crime, I'd like to see the look on your face, when the officer decides to just let the suspect walk? Like BTK said, just watch what happens if this thinking continues...Sad.
Oh, and I only have one child in this world, and it's a girl(wonderful young lady and mother now). To liken a scantily clad women getting raped, to a person being detained/arrested for committing a crime, is not at all related?!
Very accurate. My son is eligible to retire from NYPD in September with 20 years. He was considering doing another 5. Now that consideration is pretty much in the toilet. Discriminating and over charging a person because he is 1 a cop and 2 white is probably going to result in good cops re-evaluating their unappreciated and disrespected vocation. Yes the result could become very sad. But it doesn’t matter. Political ambitions trump everything else.

[Tennisbum]

Just playing devils advocate here.....a man who just beat you and your partner up, takes off running, turns and from 18 feet fires something at you that flashes...….you have 2 secs to decide if he has pulled out a gun or a taser, and return fire, or let him shoot again......do you want to go home alive or get put in a black bag? Post shooting is a different story. A good lawyer will get him a change of venue with no problem. He will get manslaughter at best!

[jimjamuser]

Seems like a common thread to all of these deaths is NOT COOPERATING with the police. Quit attacking cops, save your story for the judge, and everyone lives. There are approximately 60 MILLION interactions per year between police and civilians (over 16). Obviously, lots of people are cooperating, but some CHOOSE TO NOT COOPERATE. I wonder why?
I know many Black who are afraid of swimming and water. They did not have access to city pools because they were NOT allowed in. Whites were and became accustomed and adept at swimming. It became an irrational fear of water for Blacks. The Police have taken on a SOMEWHAT (?) type of somewhat irrational fear for Blacks. So, if drunk or high, Blacks are more likely than Whites to run or fight the Police than an identically drunk or high White. It is just enough to drive them over the edge. That would be a good time to have Both Social Workers and Police on the scene.

[ColdNoMore]

Just playing devils advocate here.....a man who just beat you and your partner up, takes off running, turns and from 18 feet fires something at you that flashes...….you have 2 secs to decide if he has pulled out a gun or a taser, and return fire, or let him shoot again......do you want to go home alive or get put in a black bag? Post shooting is a different story. A good lawyer will get him a change of venue with no problem. He will get manslaughter at best!

He had already been patted/searched...so Rolfe knew he didn't have a firearm.

Rolfe also knew that the taser had already been discharged, twice, thus rendering it impotent.

Then there's the "I got him," kicking him and standing on him like a recent trophy killed, all while he was on the ground dying...that should also be considered. :ohdear:

[ColdNoMore]

I know many Black who are afraid of swimming and water. They did not have access to city pools because they were NOT allowed in. Whites were and became accustomed and adept at swimming. It became an irrational fear of water for Blacks. The Police have taken on a SOMEWHAT (?) type of somewhat irrational fear for Blacks. So, if drunk or high, Blacks are more likely than Whites to run or fight the Police than an identically drunk or high White. It is just enough to drive them over the edge. That would be a good time to have Both Social Workers and Police on the scene.

In many, the old "lizard brain" is hardwired to be afraid...of young black men.

It might not even be a conscious effort, but simply a reversion to...'reaction, versus thoughtful action.'

[BS Beef]

Ugh, what a mess this thread has become....or actually was from the start. Sorry I let myself get dragged into this by one provocateur. Shame on me, I know better when I see that name.

:wave: Bye

[jimjamuser]

In many, the old "lizard brain" is hardwired to be afraid...of young black men.

It might not even be a conscious effort, but simply a reversion to...'reaction, versus thoughtful action.'
I always thought that Blacks got treated more equally in the Military than they did as a civilian. Also, it appears like (? I have no definitive proof of this, but) in some European countries, like Germany, France, and Italy, that they have better situations than the US. I have NOT lived there. So, maybe others that have could enlighten me?

[manaboutown]

The charges are premature; a complete investigation hasn't been completed. The prosecutor involved is up for reelection.

DA Says Brooks Wasn’t ‘Threat’ Toward Cop He Shot Taser At, Said Two Weeks Ago Taser Is ‘Considered’ A ‘Deadly Weapon’ | The Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/da-says-brooks-wasnt-threat-toward-cop-he-shot-taser-at-said-two-weeks-ago-taser-is-considered-a-deadly-weapon?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fedup)

[ColdNoMore]

I always thought that Blacks got treated more equally in the Military than they did as a civilian. Also, it appears like (? I have no definitive proof of this, but) in some European countries, like Germany, France, and Italy, that they have better situations than the US. I have NOT lived there. So, maybe others that have could enlighten me?

When it comes to 'military brats' and primarily attending base schools...I can personally attest to your observation being correct.

And upon reflection of myself, goes a long ways in explaining...my disgust for racists, bigots and prejudice. :ohdear:

[Scorpyo]

The cop should have used a less intrusive approach. Not really. He was not required to stop and think about other alternatives. No it’s not my uniformed opinion. Here’s a good link.
Scott v. Henrich – Case Brief Summary (Federal Court) | Lawpipe (https://www.lawpipe.com/U.S.-Federal-Courts/Scott_v_Henrich.html)
Supreme Court decision. But why would a prejudiced DA care about a Supreme Court decision.

[Steve9930]

The only opinion that will matter is the opinion of 12 people on the Jury. All the rest of this is nothing but hot air making money for Talk of the Villages.

[wamley]

The cop is volunteering, because he was charged with 3 crimes. Can't figire out how he was charged with anything. He's not part of a split second decision his partner makes by shooting. Being charged with 3 crimes will make most "volunteer" to testify against his partner in an effort to get out of his own jam. Officers were charged quickly to help prevent violence in fear of what happen in Minneapolis. Lack of compliance with Police officers direction cause most of these incidents.

[holmesperdue]

Let's see; a fleeing person who not a danger to the general public gets killed. The cops know his name and could have picked him up later for resisting arrest. But instead someone makes a decision to take a life... I guess who all should be careful to not do something stupid... does life not have value - think about it ....

[graciegirl]

I had posted a link from The Today Show this morning about Rayshard Brooks, a tape previously recorded by him, that said he felt that after his incarceration for "False Imprisonment and Credit Card Fraud", he felt that the "system let him down" and that he should have been funded in some way after getting out of prison. Now all those words are gone from any link I can find. They have titles like...a heartbreaking tape in his own words...etc.

It is gone from this forum too, my original link. My post. Sometimes I wonder what is happening in this world. I found many links but not the original one that I felt gave a clear picture of this man who was indeed killed by a police officer after he took the officers taser from him and ran and fired twice at the officer.

It was probably removed along with another post that I had responded to, but I am so surprised when I go to a browser that has been "cleaned" by some unseen entity. I am not disputing our moderator, just sad my post is gone, but I am sure it was fairly removed because of my response to another post.

I thought we could trust the transparency of the fair journalism in this country but it really looks like we see what "they" want us to see.

Here is a version that doesn't have the full transcription;...all I could find.
Video emerges of Rayshard Brooks being interviewed months before death: "Look at us as individuals" - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rayshard-brooks-video-before-death-individuals/)

[manaboutown]

GG, I am having the same problem. Factual sources of what Floyd and Brooks were really like, their criminal histories, number of illegitimate children they fathered and so on have literally disappeared from the internet. Even using alternate search engines is not working. The IT powers that be have scrubbed any background data on these men that reflects negatively in any way upon them.

It is digital book burning!

[manaboutown]

Let's see; a fleeing person who not a danger to the general public gets killed. The cops know his name and could have picked him up later for resisting arrest. But instead someone makes a decision to take a life... I guess who all should be careful to not do something stupid... does life not have value - think about it ....

It happens again and again and again. Massachusetts police officer killed after attacked with rock, shot with own gun, officials say | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts-police-officer-killed-after-attacked-with-rock-shot-with-own-gun-officials-say?fbclid=IwAR169eYg9fGfx1mgJZb4pLUo-ksQ45DU4aSA_yW0afGO9tgA0TZwekdrWdQ)

[Don Ferguson]

Seeing how many police officers have cut and run lately is something else. I don't know which is worse, those that quit individually or those who do it "en masse" to leverage their power. These people took an oath and the realization that they can't hack it when their communities really need them to step up, be responsive and accountable is pathetic. Almost makes me wonder if people are quitting because they realize they finally WILL be held accountable and they won't be able to get away with half the stuff they've done in the past.

I completely disagree with premise. I personally can't comprehend ANY competent and honorable person becoming a police officer. They are underpaid and more importantly under respected for a complex and terribly difficult and dangerous job.
Geometrically more police officers are innocently assassinated in our country than minority deaths that occur!

[Don Ferguson]

Just as I was preparing to "raise my hand" in opinion. I read bluecenturions response #46 and it mirrors my opinion exactly.

Both officers are being improperly overcharged by a politician that is being investigated for multiple serious charges and if an honorable person would have long ago stepped down while investigations continue.

It is laughable that the DA states in his charges that a TASER is not a deadly weapon, when he has just filed charges against another police officer for discharging a deadly weapon TASER!

BIG REMINDER: The jury charges are for them to consider NOT what a reasonable person would do in this case, but rather what a reasonable police officer would do. Can't see any way offivers lose!

[Spikearoni]

I had posted a link from The Today Show this morning about Rayshard Brooks, a tape previously recorded by him, that said he felt that after his incarceration for "False Imprisonment and Credit Card Fraud", he felt that the "system let him down" and that he should have been funded in some way after getting out of prison. Now all those words are gone from any link I can find. They have titles like...a heartbreaking tape in his own words...etc.

It is gone from this forum too, my original link. My post. Sometimes I wonder what is happening in this world. I found many links but not the original one that I felt gave a clear picture of this man who was indeed killed by a police officer after he took the officers taser from him and ran and fired twice at the officer.

It was probably removed along with another post that I had responded to, but I am so surprised when I go to a browser that has been "cleaned" by some unseen entity. I am not disputing our moderator, just sad my post is gone, but I am sure it was fairly removed because of my response to another post.

I thought we could trust the transparency of the fair journalism in this country but it really looks like we see what "they" want us to see.

Here is a version that doesn't have the full transcription;...all I could find.
Video emerges of Rayshard Brooks being interviewed months before death: "Look at us as individuals" - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rayshard-brooks-video-before-death-individuals/)

When Brooks was dying on the ground after having been shot in the back twice, he was repeatedly kicked by the officer; Brooks was not a danger to those policemen. All involved had shared in a lengthy, rather friendly conversation prior to the shooting. Brooks was on probation and knew that his run-in with the police would not bode very well with his PO so he took off. The entire incident is very sad, for the police as well as for Brooks.

I saw the video to which you refer and my take on it is that Brooks suggested that newly released ex-convicts need help upon their release if they are to become productive citizens. They require assistance re-entering society and finding a job; they need a mentor to help them when problems arise. He recognized that he made mistakes and wanted to be a "good father" but had to overcome many obstacles in addition to having a prison record on his resume. I didn't come away from that interview with the notion that he just wanted "funds" or a hand-out.

It costs many thousands of dollars to house prisoners just for one year. It would make sense to lower the recividism rate by providing the kind of assistance that Brooks suggested. It would thereby save the government money if a real effort in that direction came to fruition.

[B767drvr]

I had posted a link from The Today Show this morning about Rayshard Brooks, a tape previously recorded by him, that said he felt that after his incarceration for "False Imprisonment and Credit Card Fraud", he felt that the "system let him down" and that he should have been funded in some way after getting out of prison.

I watched the video (CNN link?)... and was struck by a single notion. Mr. Brooks, similar to the BLM movement in general, completely fails to take responsibility for HIS CHOICES. He CHOSE to commit those prior crimes (which resulted in his imprisonment) but won't take ownership of the consequences of his CHOICES. It's a victimhood mentality, that "the system" is against him. It's an essential lesson all parents must teach their children - take ownership of your choices!

[ColdNoMore]

When Brooks was dying on the ground after having been shot in the back twice, he was repeatedly kicked by the officer; Brooks was not a danger to those policemen. All involved had shared in a lengthy, rather friendly conversation prior to the shooting. Brooks was on probation and knew that his run-in with the police would not bode very well with his PO so he took off. The entire incident is very sad, for the police as well as for Brooks.

I saw the video to which you refer and my take on it is that Brooks suggested that newly released ex-convicts need help upon their release if they are to become productive citizens. They require assistance re-entering society and finding a job; they need a mentor to help them when problems arise. He recognized that he made mistakes and wanted to be a "good father" but had to overcome many obstacles in addition to having a prison record on his resume. I didn't come away from that interview with the notion that he just wanted "funds" or a hand-out.

It costs many thousands of dollars to house prisoners just for one year. It would make sense to lower the recividism rate by providing the kind of assistance that Brooks suggested. It would thereby save the government money if a real effort in that direction came to fruition.

Intelligently and well stated. :thumbup:

[Holpat39]

Every one has an opinion. Just settle down and let the lawyers, prosecutors and courts decide on this. All you armchair people with your opinions doesn't mean a darn thing.

[graciegirl]

When Brooks was dying on the ground after having been shot in the back twice, he was repeatedly kicked by the officer; Brooks was not a danger to those policemen. All involved had shared in a lengthy, rather friendly conversation prior to the shooting. Brooks was on probation and knew that his run-in with the police would not bode very well with his PO so he took off. The entire incident is very sad, for the police as well as for Brooks.

I saw the video to which you refer and my take on it is that Brooks suggested that newly released ex-convicts need help upon their release if they are to become productive citizens. They require assistance re-entering society and finding a job; they need a mentor to help them when problems arise. He recognized that he made mistakes and wanted to be a "good father" but had to overcome many obstacles in addition to having a prison record on his resume. I didn't come away from that interview with the notion that he just wanted "funds" or a hand-out.

It costs many thousands of dollars to house prisoners just for one year. It would make sense to lower the recividism rate by providing the kind of assistance that Brooks suggested. It would thereby save the government money if a real effort in that direction came to fruition.

He didn't appear to recognize he made mistakes to me. It seems like he was saying...no big deal. I guess it all depends how you look at it. It is a huge deal for me. I came from a great big family with grandparents giving birth to nine children on both sides. Not a single one of them were incarcerated.

I imagine one of the reasons was this. If they would have been, no one would have paid their bail. We had one of those families that if you burnt your ass, you sit on the blister. They weren't mean or unkind but you...YOU...brother. YOU sister were in charge of what happened to YOU.

[Jacob85]

If I were on the jury I would vote to convict! He shot the guy when he was running away, he knew the stun gun would not shot again, he knew the guy had no other weapons, he endangered the people in the car that was in the line of fire and he kicked him when he was shot and dying!

[ALadysMom]

I know this may sound naive but I really try not to judge. That’s what we have a criminal justice system for & I want every defendant to have their “day in court.” That’s what is being denied when black defendants are killed. They never get their day day in court / justice. I try not to pre-judge, in part, because that’s what keeps getting us in so much trouble..prejudice.

I was reading about the history of Native American Mounds when this very timely quote stood out from a Chief who was born 222 years ago:

We Are All Equal

The color of skin makes no difference. What is good and just for one is good and just for the other, and the Great Spirit made all men brothers.

I have a red skin, but my grandfather was a white man. What does it matter? It is not the color of the skin that makes me good or bad.

- White Shield, Arikara Chief
Born-1798

How long will humanity be stuck in an infinite loop until we finally figure out the solutions?

[mneumann02]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?

When I was a young man I frequently got stopped and hassled by the police. All I ever did was COMPLY. I was taught that by my parents. I never tried to grab a cop’s gun like Michael Brown did. A question. Would there be less police shootings of Black men if they just complied? This is a yes or no question.

[Steve9930]

Not my work, but very well done and a perfect explanation of why the DA in Atlanta is an incompetent hack
A very good examination of why shooting the guy was completely justified. Unfortunately, the idiot DA has decided to charge the officer with felony murder to appease the BLM crowd. Purely political, and will bite them in the ass when the officer is acquitted of the ridiculous murder charge. Then the animals will riot and set fire to Atlanta.
"APD SHOOTING EXPLAINED”
Before reading below, remember that officers are afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens, so whether they’re charged for political reasons or not, the facts of the case remain the same until their day in court:
In order to understand this situation, you’ve got to set feelings and emotions aside to understand objective reasonableness.
So looking at this case, what do we know?
A DUI investigation determined that he was too intoxicated to drive. The bodycam showed the officers being overly nice and polite to him the entire time all the way up until the handcuffs were about to go on, as they should’ve been.
As soon as they tried to cuff him, an all out brawl took place. Not just resisting, but punching them in the face and throwing them around.
He took one officer’s taser, threw him face first into the asphalt, stood up, and took off.
_____________
So let’s pause there and see where we’re at legally.
Charges:
DUI
Obstruction X2 - Felony
Battery on an officer X2
Aggravated assault X2 - Felony
Strong Armed Robbery - Felony
And believe it or not....
Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime - Felony
Per Georgia Law, a taser is classified as a “less-lethal” FIREARM as they do occasionally cause death.
(OCGA 16-11-106)
________________
These offenses are important because there is a case law called Tennessee v Garner
What Tennessee v Garner states is:
“When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, UNLESS it has been threatened.”
So this goes back to the taser being classified as a firearm that can cause death or great bodily harm.
___________
So,
They fought
He stole the taser
He got up and ran
The 2nd officer chased after him and tried to use his own taser against him, but he didn’t get a good connection.
Brooks then turns, aims the taser at the officer, and fires. Statutorily, this is no different than firing a gun.
(The taser that APD carries has 2 cartridges, so Brooks could have potentially shot the officer twice.)
The officer dropped his taser from his left hand after it appears he was hit by a barb on the video, draws his sidearm, fires 3 shots, falls against a car in the parking lot and Brooks goes down.
Brooks was not only a continuing threat to the officer since he could still fire the taser again, but he also showed and EXTREME desire to get away, with a weapon. So it is not unreasonable to have the fear that he would use that weapon to carjack a motorist sitting in the drive-thru line, take a hostage, or otherwise hurt another innocent party.
What does Georgia Law say about deadly force?
OCGA 17-4-20 (b):
Sheriffs and peace officers may use deadly force:
1.) to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon. (He did)
2.) to apprehend a suspected felon who possesses any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury. (He did)
3.) to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others (He did)
4.) to apprehend a suspected felon when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (He did)
The officer only needed one of those requirements, but he had all 4........
Now the reason taser’s are considered “less-lethal” is because when used appropriately, you are “less likely” to kill someone vs using a gun. But Brooks hasn’t been through the training to know how to avoid certain vulnerable parts of the body, and he doesn’t understand how neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) works, which makes it MORE likely for him to cause great bodily injury or death than if an officer used it.
And just to support the fact that tasers can and do kill, there is an East Point Officer currently sitting in prison for improperly using a taser and killing a man a few years ago.
(Eberhart v Georgia)
“He could’ve shot him in the leg!”
Right off the top, it is unconstitutional to do so. It is considered cruel and unusual punishment to employ a gun in that manner. Either an officer felt deadly force was necessary, or he should use a lesser response.
We could just leave it at that, but that's too much of a cop out, so let's discuss WHY it has been deemed unconstitutional. For one thing, that's an extremely difficult shot to make. The target is quite narrow, and in continuous motion as the suspect runs away/charges the officer. Under the best of conditions trying to hit the leg is challenging...to be generous about it. But in a life or death encounter, the officer's fine motor skills will be eroded by the stress of the encounter making the shot, turning a leg shot into a very low probability feat.
Assuming a round does hit the leg, then what? The only way a shot to the leg would immediately stop a threat is by shattering one of the bones, and stopping the threat is the ultimate goal. While it is very difficult to find a shot to the leg that will immediately stop a threat, it is actually comparatively easy to find shots to the leg which eventually prove fatal. Human legs have very large blood vessels which are essentially unprotected (femoral artery)
Now remember, we’ve had days to sit back, watch videos, discuss, and analyze this entire thing. The officers had less than a minute from the time the fight started, and less than 5 seconds to interpret EVERYTHING you just read while running, getting shot at with a taser, and returning fire

[ColdNoMore]

When I was a young man I frequently got stopped and hassled by the police. All I ever did was COMPLY. I was taught that by my parents. I never tried to grab a cop’s gun like Michael Brown did. A question. Would there be less police shootings of Black men if they just complied? This is a yes or no question.Sorry, but life (and most issues) can't be answered with just a...yes or no.

And I have never, not even once, said that a LEO doesn't have the right and justification in using deadly force...to protect themselves if their own life is in jeopardy.

From all of the facts, video and eye-witness statements of this incident though...I don't believe deadly force was justified.

Then add the cops actions afterward and.... :ohdear:

Since you seem to like yes/no questions though...I have one for you.

Feel free, as I have, to expand on just...the yes or no choice.



Do you believe that more blacks (percentage wise), especially young black men, are stereotyped/stopped/hassled/arrested...more often than young white men in the exact same circumstances?

[GoodLife]

Not my work, but very well done and a perfect explanation of why the DA in Atlanta is an incompetent hack
A very good examination of why shooting the guy was completely justified. Unfortunately, the idiot DA has decided to charge the officer with felony murder to appease the BLM crowd. Purely political, and will bite them in the ass when the officer is acquitted of the ridiculous murder charge. Then the animals will riot and set fire to Atlanta.
"APD SHOOTING EXPLAINED”
Before reading below, remember that officers are afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens, so whether they’re charged for political reasons or not, the facts of the case remain the same until their day in court:
In order to understand this situation, you’ve got to set feelings and emotions aside to understand objective reasonableness.
So looking at this case, what do we know?
A DUI investigation determined that he was too intoxicated to drive. The bodycam showed the officers being overly nice and polite to him the entire time all the way up until the handcuffs were about to go on, as they should’ve been.
As soon as they tried to cuff him, an all out brawl took place. Not just resisting, but punching them in the face and throwing them around.
He took one officer’s taser, threw him face first into the asphalt, stood up, and took off.
_____________
So let’s pause there and see where we’re at legally.
Charges:
DUI
Obstruction X2 - Felony
Battery on an officer X2
Aggravated assault X2 - Felony
Strong Armed Robbery - Felony
And believe it or not....
Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime - Felony
Per Georgia Law, a taser is classified as a “less-lethal” FIREARM as they do occasionally cause death.
(OCGA 16-11-106)
________________
These offenses are important because there is a case law called Tennessee v Garner
What Tennessee v Garner states is:
“When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, UNLESS it has been threatened.”
So this goes back to the taser being classified as a firearm that can cause death or great bodily harm.
___________
So,
They fought
He stole the taser
He got up and ran
The 2nd officer chased after him and tried to use his own taser against him, but he didn’t get a good connection.
Brooks then turns, aims the taser at the officer, and fires. Statutorily, this is no different than firing a gun.
(The taser that APD carries has 2 cartridges, so Brooks could have potentially shot the officer twice.)
The officer dropped his taser from his left hand after it appears he was hit by a barb on the video, draws his sidearm, fires 3 shots, falls against a car in the parking lot and Brooks goes down.
Brooks was not only a continuing threat to the officer since he could still fire the taser again, but he also showed and EXTREME desire to get away, with a weapon. So it is not unreasonable to have the fear that he would use that weapon to carjack a motorist sitting in the drive-thru line, take a hostage, or otherwise hurt another innocent party.
What does Georgia Law say about deadly force?
OCGA 17-4-20 (b):
Sheriffs and peace officers may use deadly force:
1.) to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon. (He did)
2.) to apprehend a suspected felon who possesses any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury. (He did)
3.) to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others (He did)
4.) to apprehend a suspected felon when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (He did)
The officer only needed one of those requirements, but he had all 4........
Now the reason taser’s are considered “less-lethal” is because when used appropriately, you are “less likely” to kill someone vs using a gun. But Brooks hasn’t been through the training to know how to avoid certain vulnerable parts of the body, and he doesn’t understand how neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) works, which makes it MORE likely for him to cause great bodily injury or death than if an officer used it.
And just to support the fact that tasers can and do kill, there is an East Point Officer currently sitting in prison for improperly using a taser and killing a man a few years ago.
(Eberhart v Georgia)
“He could’ve shot him in the leg!”
Right off the top, it is unconstitutional to do so. It is considered cruel and unusual punishment to employ a gun in that manner. Either an officer felt deadly force was necessary, or he should use a lesser response.
We could just leave it at that, but that's too much of a cop out, so let's discuss WHY it has been deemed unconstitutional. For one thing, that's an extremely difficult shot to make. The target is quite narrow, and in continuous motion as the suspect runs away/charges the officer. Under the best of conditions trying to hit the leg is challenging...to be generous about it. But in a life or death encounter, the officer's fine motor skills will be eroded by the stress of the encounter making the shot, turning a leg shot into a very low probability feat.
Assuming a round does hit the leg, then what? The only way a shot to the leg would immediately stop a threat is by shattering one of the bones, and stopping the threat is the ultimate goal. While it is very difficult to find a shot to the leg that will immediately stop a threat, it is actually comparatively easy to find shots to the leg which eventually prove fatal. Human legs have very large blood vessels which are essentially unprotected (femoral artery)
Now remember, we’ve had days to sit back, watch videos, discuss, and analyze this entire thing. The officers had less than a minute from the time the fight started, and less than 5 seconds to interpret EVERYTHING you just read while running, getting shot at with a taser, and returning fire

:bigbow: Excellent! A post with all the facts and relevant laws that everybody needs to read. Read post #140 and you will understand why there's no case against the officers

[stadry]

i'm still certain there are only 2 genders,,, there's a lot of wanna-be gender victims but they don't count or apply at birth

[anothersteve]

Not my work, but very well done and a perfect explanation of why the DA in Atlanta is an incompetent hack
A very good examination of why shooting the guy was completely justified. Unfortunately, the idiot DA has decided to charge the officer with felony murder to appease the BLM crowd. Purely political, and will bite them in the ass when the officer is acquitted of the ridiculous murder charge. Then the animals will riot and set fire to Atlanta.
"APD SHOOTING EXPLAINED”
Before reading below, remember that officers are afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens, so whether they’re charged for political reasons or not, the facts of the case remain the same until their day in court:
In order to understand this situation, you’ve got to set feelings and emotions aside to understand objective reasonableness.
So looking at this case, what do we know?
A DUI investigation determined that he was too intoxicated to drive. The bodycam showed the officers being overly nice and polite to him the entire time all the way up until the handcuffs were about to go on, as they should’ve been.
As soon as they tried to cuff him, an all out brawl took place. Not just resisting, but punching them in the face and throwing them around.
He took one officer’s taser, threw him face first into the asphalt, stood up, and took off.
_____________
So let’s pause there and see where we’re at legally.
Charges:
DUI
Obstruction X2 - Felony
Battery on an officer X2
Aggravated assault X2 - Felony
Strong Armed Robbery - Felony
And believe it or not....
Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime - Felony
Per Georgia Law, a taser is classified as a “less-lethal” FIREARM as they do occasionally cause death.
(OCGA 16-11-106)
________________
These offenses are important because there is a case law called Tennessee v Garner
What Tennessee v Garner states is:
“When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, UNLESS it has been threatened.”
So this goes back to the taser being classified as a firearm that can cause death or great bodily harm.
___________
So,
They fought
He stole the taser
He got up and ran
The 2nd officer chased after him and tried to use his own taser against him, but he didn’t get a good connection.
Brooks then turns, aims the taser at the officer, and fires. Statutorily, this is no different than firing a gun.
(The taser that APD carries has 2 cartridges, so Brooks could have potentially shot the officer twice.)
The officer dropped his taser from his left hand after it appears he was hit by a barb on the video, draws his sidearm, fires 3 shots, falls against a car in the parking lot and Brooks goes down.
Brooks was not only a continuing threat to the officer since he could still fire the taser again, but he also showed and EXTREME desire to get away, with a weapon. So it is not unreasonable to have the fear that he would use that weapon to carjack a motorist sitting in the drive-thru line, take a hostage, or otherwise hurt another innocent party.
What does Georgia Law say about deadly force?
OCGA 17-4-20 (b):
Sheriffs and peace officers may use deadly force:
1.) to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon. (He did)
2.) to apprehend a suspected felon who possesses any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury. (He did)
3.) to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others (He did)
4.) to apprehend a suspected felon when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (He did)
The officer only needed one of those requirements, but he had all 4........
Now the reason taser’s are considered “less-lethal” is because when used appropriately, you are “less likely” to kill someone vs using a gun. But Brooks hasn’t been through the training to know how to avoid certain vulnerable parts of the body, and he doesn’t understand how neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) works, which makes it MORE likely for him to cause great bodily injury or death than if an officer used it.
And just to support the fact that tasers can and do kill, there is an East Point Officer currently sitting in prison for improperly using a taser and killing a man a few years ago.
(Eberhart v Georgia)
“He could’ve shot him in the leg!”
Right off the top, it is unconstitutional to do so. It is considered cruel and unusual punishment to employ a gun in that manner. Either an officer felt deadly force was necessary, or he should use a lesser response.
We could just leave it at that, but that's too much of a cop out, so let's discuss WHY it has been deemed unconstitutional. For one thing, that's an extremely difficult shot to make. The target is quite narrow, and in continuous motion as the suspect runs away/charges the officer. Under the best of conditions trying to hit the leg is challenging...to be generous about it. But in a life or death encounter, the officer's fine motor skills will be eroded by the stress of the encounter making the shot, turning a leg shot into a very low probability feat.
Assuming a round does hit the leg, then what? The only way a shot to the leg would immediately stop a threat is by shattering one of the bones, and stopping the threat is the ultimate goal. While it is very difficult to find a shot to the leg that will immediately stop a threat, it is actually comparatively easy to find shots to the leg which eventually prove fatal. Human legs have very large blood vessels which are essentially unprotected (femoral artery)
Now remember, we’ve had days to sit back, watch videos, discuss, and analyze this entire thing. The officers had less than a minute from the time the fight started, and less than 5 seconds to interpret EVERYTHING you just read while running, getting shot at with a taser, and returning fire

But....but........but.....but.....
Aw nevermind!


Thanks

Steve

[coffeebean]

Do you understand why he resisted being handcuffed? He was turning his life around but was on probation and being arrested would send him back to jail. Why did they have to cuff him? He was cordial and was no threat to anyone, just let him walk home.
So......he was on probation and driving drunk. That is not a good start to "turning his life around".

[Steve9930]

So......he was on probation and driving drunk. That is not a good start to "turning his life around".

That is why he ran. He knew he was headed back to the slammer.

[valuemkt]

Not my work, but very well done and a perfect explanation of why the DA in Atlanta is an incompetent hack
A very good examination of why shooting the guy was completely justified. Unfortunately, the idiot DA has decided to charge the officer with felony murder to appease the BLM crowd. Purely political, and will bite them in the ass when the officer is acquitted of the ridiculous murder charge. Then the animals will riot and set fire to Atlanta.
"APD SHOOTING EXPLAINED”
Before reading below, remember that officers are afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens, so whether they’re charged for political reasons or not, the facts of the case remain the same until their day in court:
In order to understand this situation, you’ve got to set feelings and emotions aside to understand objective reasonableness.
So looking at this case, what do we know?
A DUI investigation determined that he was too intoxicated to drive. The bodycam showed the officers being overly nice and polite to him the entire time all the way up until the handcuffs were about to go on, as they should’ve been.
As soon as they tried to cuff him, an all out brawl took place. Not just resisting, but punching them in the face and throwing them around.
He took one officer’s taser, threw him face first into the asphalt, stood up, and took off.
_____________
So let’s pause there and see where we’re at legally.
Charges:
DUI
Obstruction X2 - Felony
Battery on an officer X2
Aggravated assault X2 - Felony
Strong Armed Robbery - Felony
And believe it or not....
Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime - Felony
Per Georgia Law, a taser is classified as a “less-lethal” FIREARM as they do occasionally cause death.
(OCGA 16-11-106)
________________
These offenses are important because there is a case law called Tennessee v Garner
What Tennessee v Garner states is:
“When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, UNLESS it has been threatened.”
So this goes back to the taser being classified as a firearm that can cause death or great bodily harm.
___________
So,
They fought
He stole the taser
He got up and ran
The 2nd officer chased after him and tried to use his own taser against him, but he didn’t get a good connection.
Brooks then turns, aims the taser at the officer, and fires. Statutorily, this is no different than firing a gun.
(The taser that APD carries has 2 cartridges, so Brooks could have potentially shot the officer twice.)
The officer dropped his taser from his left hand after it appears he was hit by a barb on the video, draws his sidearm, fires 3 shots, falls against a car in the parking lot and Brooks goes down.
Brooks was not only a continuing threat to the officer since he could still fire the taser again, but he also showed and EXTREME desire to get away, with a weapon. So it is not unreasonable to have the fear that he would use that weapon to carjack a motorist sitting in the drive-thru line, take a hostage, or otherwise hurt another innocent party.
What does Georgia Law say about deadly force?
OCGA 17-4-20 (b):
Sheriffs and peace officers may use deadly force:
1.) to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon. (He did)
2.) to apprehend a suspected felon who possesses any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury. (He did)
3.) to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others (He did)
4.) to apprehend a suspected felon when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (He did)
The officer only needed one of those requirements, but he had all 4........
Now the reason taser’s are considered “less-lethal” is because when used appropriately, you are “less likely” to kill someone vs using a gun. But Brooks hasn’t been through the training to know how to avoid certain vulnerable parts of the body, and he doesn’t understand how neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) works, which makes it MORE likely for him to cause great bodily injury or death than if an officer used it.
And just to support the fact that tasers can and do kill, there is an East Point Officer currently sitting in prison for improperly using a taser and killing a man a few years ago.
(Eberhart v Georgia)
“He could’ve shot him in the leg!”
Right off the top, it is unconstitutional to do so. It is considered cruel and unusual punishment to employ a gun in that manner. Either an officer felt deadly force was necessary, or he should use a lesser response.
We could just leave it at that, but that's too much of a cop out, so let's discuss WHY it has been deemed unconstitutional. For one thing, that's an extremely difficult shot to make. The target is quite narrow, and in continuous motion as the suspect runs away/charges the officer. Under the best of conditions trying to hit the leg is challenging...to be generous about it. But in a life or death encounter, the officer's fine motor skills will be eroded by the stress of the encounter making the shot, turning a leg shot into a very low probability feat.
Assuming a round does hit the leg, then what? The only way a shot to the leg would immediately stop a threat is by shattering one of the bones, and stopping the threat is the ultimate goal. While it is very difficult to find a shot to the leg that will immediately stop a threat, it is actually comparatively easy to find shots to the leg which eventually prove fatal. Human legs have very large blood vessels which are essentially unprotected (femoral artery)
Now remember, we’ve had days to sit back, watch videos, discuss, and analyze this entire thing. The officers had less than a minute from the time the fight started, and less than 5 seconds to interpret EVERYTHING you just read while running, getting shot at with a taser, and returning fire

Outstanding synopsis

The PBA Lawyers will have to argue hard for bail. I doubt the trial will take place for over a year. There is NO WAY the trial will be conducted in Atlanta. So change of venues will be vigorously argued. Jury selection will be a nightmare. This will go on for a long time. I'm not a union person, but in this case the union needs to strongly get behind both officers and ensure fair representation. This whole process would bankrupt the majority of officers, who went to work that day trying to do their job. As an aside, I would also be very surprised if the other officer actually cops a plea and testifies against the other

[mneumann02]

Sorry, but life (and most issues) can't be answered with just a...yes or no.

And I have never, not even once, said that a LEO doesn't have the right and justification in using deadly force...to protect themselves if their own life is in jeopardy.

From all of the facts, video and eye-witness statements of this incident though...I don't believe deadly force was justified.

Then add the cops actions afterward and.... :ohdear:

Since you seem to like yes/no questions though...I have one for you.

Feel free, as I have, to expand on just...the yes or no choice.



Do you believe that more blacks (percentage wise), especially young black men, are stereotyped/stopped/hassled/arrested...more often than young white men in the exact same circumstances?

You did not answer my question, but I'll answer yours, although you have lumped several questions and statements into one. Yes, more young black men are stopped and more are shot because they commit more crimes and/or fail to comply with a policeman's reasonable request. (This is not denying there are bad cops out there.)
My local paper publishes the pictures of criminals, and it is so sad to see 2 out of 3 are minorities, despite them only making up about 18% of the population. So blaming racism on all the ills of our minority community results in not solving the real issues.

Let's imagine a world where racism ended today and there were no more Confederate or slave owners' statues, no military bases with slave owner names, the book and movie "Gone with the Wind" is banned, etc. Is this going to solve the real problems of the minority community of poverty, atrocious high school dropout rates, young girls condemned to a life of poverty by dropping out of school and having babies, drug use, and most importantly, the breakdown of the family unit- too many children are being raised by one parent or a grandmother or aunt? What if we had real political leaders who created real programs to address these issues? In my imaginary world, everyone stays in school, goes to a trade school or college, and has a $75,000/year job.

[Stu from NYC]

When I was a young man I frequently got stopped and hassled by the police. All I ever did was COMPLY. I was taught that by my parents. I never tried to grab a cop’s gun like Michael Brown did. A question. Would there be less police shootings of Black men if they just complied? This is a yes or no question.

Without a doubt so the answer is yes,

[Stu from NYC]

Outstanding synopsis

The PBA Lawyers will have to argue hard for bail. I doubt the trial will take place for over a year. There is NO WAY the trial will be conducted in Atlanta. So change of venues will be vigorously argued. Jury selection will be a nightmare. This will go on for a long time. I'm not a union person, but in this case the union needs to strongly get behind both officers and ensure fair representation. This whole process would bankrupt the majority of officers, who went to work that day trying to do their job. As an aside, I would also be very surprised if the other officer actually cops a plea and testifies against the other

So in a year or so there is jury trial and good chance officer gets not guilty verdict. Than of course the rabble goes off on its path of destruction. Does one really think the police will try to stop this given the climate?

So sad we have come to this,

[graciegirl]

Sorry, but life (and most issues) can't be answered with just a...yes or no.

And I have never, not even once, said that a LEO doesn't have the right and justification in using deadly force...to protect themselves if their own life is in jeopardy.

From all of the facts, video and eye-witness statements of this incident though...I don't believe deadly force was justified.

Then add the cops actions afterward and.... :ohdear:

Since you seem to like yes/no questions though...I have one for you.

Feel free, as I have, to expand on just...the yes or no choice.



Do you believe that more blacks (percentage wise), especially young black men, are stereotyped/stopped/hassled/arrested...more often than young white men in the exact same circumstances?

Yes.

Do you not think that a lot of us wish that all young men of all ethnicities would not break laws? I can't see how it has anything to do with race or color or being poor. But then again, I have always been me. I try very hard to listen to the reasons things happen. Some of the reasons I am given seem like excuses. No matter how hard we try, sometimes, the reasons do not seem clear to many of us. What is so awful right now is having a lot of people we have never met or never harmed or ever wished harm to, dislike us a lot.

[skip0358]

Without a doubt so the answer is yes,

Yes!

[retiredguy123]

When I look at the big picture, we have a police force to enforce our laws primarily by arresting criminals, so they can be prosecuted and punished, and using force when necessary. That is why they carry guns. Mr. Brooks was obviously a criminal who resisted arrest. The police did their job. They didn't gain anything by killing Mr. Brooks. There is no evidence of racism. And, there is no consensus among the expert pundits that the police used excessive force. So, what does our society gain by punishing the police officers? The officers will get a trial, but, if I were on the jury, I seriously doubt that I could vote to convict those police officers.

[Kerry Azz]

And a whole lot of new, disgusting, info coming out...justifying those charges.

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness.

I'm curious to know, if anyone who originally thought this killing was justified...have now changed their minds?

I'm going to go out on a limb here (just kidding, it's not really that hard to predict)...that very few will raise their hands.

I hope, and would be happy...if I'm wrong though.

More to come. :popcorn:

Lock them up charge them and throw them in general population, imagine if that was your son? Running from the police does not warrant 2 shots in the back and then a few kicks while your dying on the ground. To many bullies with badges they need to be stopped! The

[valuemkt]

Intelligently and well stated. :thumbup:

yea, very intelligent. Catch and release .. or don;t catch at all .. Did you read about the 'gentleman" in NYC that has been arrested 102 times ?? Yep, send him to a social worker ..

The right to bear arms will reach a fever pitch as vigilante justice will return . Kudos for the Philadelphia gun shop owner who protected his business and his life by blowing away those that broke into his property and aimed a gun at him.. No need to call the police... No need to spend taxpayer money on a trial.. No need for a prison..

Yep, very intelligent and well stated.. Fore warned and fore ARMED

[ColdNoMore]

You did not answer my question, but I'll answer yours, although you have lumped several questions and statements into one. Yes, more young black men are stopped and more are shot because they commit more crimes and/or fail to comply with a policeman's reasonable request. (This is not denying there are bad cops out there.)

My local paper publishes the pictures of criminals, and it is so sad to see 2 out of 3 are minorities, despite them only making up about 18% of the population. So blaming racism on all the ills of our minority community results in not solving the real issues.

Let's imagine a world where racism ended today and there were no more Confederate or slave owners' statues, no military bases with slave owner names, the book and movie "Gone with the Wind" is banned, etc. Is this going to solve the real problems of the minority community of poverty, atrocious high school dropout rates, young girls condemned to a life of poverty by dropping out of school and having babies, drug use, and most importantly, the breakdown of the family unit- too many children are being raised by one parent or a grandmother or aunt? What if we had real political leaders who created real programs to address these issues? In my imaginary world, everyone stays in school, goes to a trade school or college, and has a $75,000/year job.

Yes, I did answer you.


Please Read This (Click Here) (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/1784705-post157.html)

As a liberal, white woman, professional (Attorney and Surgeon), married parent of 2 sons and foster parent of 6 black children, I am aghast at some of the hateful or ignorant opinions/solutions I read on this thread. My sons were teens when we began fostering (northern state) and we were blessed by their lives.

The local police, however, were after these kids from the day we invited them into our homes. (They were not the only black kids in our community)- Questioning them on where they were going, where they were coming from, how did they get those shoes, why are they walking into this person's drive way, why are they standing out in from of the local theater (along with my bio sons), why are you walking with this (white) girl, frisking their pockets?

My hubby and I spend a lot of time at the police station trying to stop this behavior.

Everyone should foster a black child so see what it's like and what these kids are up against.

Thankfully our neighbors treated the kids with respect. It was the greatest education of my life time and we're still close to each of the kids we fostered. An yes, we put them through college....yes, we gave them free stuff. I'm so disappointed in my fellow whites who think they know the failing of everyone but themselves.

[John41]

not my work, but very well done and a perfect explanation of why the da in atlanta is an incompetent hack
a very good examination of why shooting the guy was completely justified. Unfortunately, the idiot da has decided to charge the officer with felony murder to appease the blm crowd. Purely political, and will bite them in the ass when the officer is acquitted of the ridiculous murder charge. Then the animals will riot and set fire to atlanta.
"apd shooting explained”
before reading below, remember that officers are afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens, so whether they’re charged for political reasons or not, the facts of the case remain the same until their day in court:
In order to understand this situation, you’ve got to set feelings and emotions aside to understand objective reasonableness.
So looking at this case, what do we know?
A dui investigation determined that he was too intoxicated to drive. The bodycam showed the officers being overly nice and polite to him the entire time all the way up until the handcuffs were about to go on, as they should’ve been.
As soon as they tried to cuff him, an all out brawl took place. Not just resisting, but punching them in the face and throwing them around.
He took one officer’s taser, threw him face first into the asphalt, stood up, and took off.
_____________
so let’s pause there and see where we’re at legally.
Charges:
Dui
obstruction x2 - felony
battery on an officer x2
aggravated assault x2 - felony
strong armed robbery - felony
and believe it or not....
Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime - felony
per georgia law, a taser is classified as a “less-lethal” firearm as they do occasionally cause death.
(ocga 16-11-106)
________________
these offenses are important because there is a case law called tennessee v garner
what tennessee v garner states is:
“when a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.”
so this goes back to the taser being classified as a firearm that can cause death or great bodily harm.
___________
so,
they fought
he stole the taser
he got up and ran
the 2nd officer chased after him and tried to use his own taser against him, but he didn’t get a good connection.
Brooks then turns, aims the taser at the officer, and fires. Statutorily, this is no different than firing a gun.
(the taser that apd carries has 2 cartridges, so brooks could have potentially shot the officer twice.)
the officer dropped his taser from his left hand after it appears he was hit by a barb on the video, draws his sidearm, fires 3 shots, falls against a car in the parking lot and brooks goes down.
Brooks was not only a continuing threat to the officer since he could still fire the taser again, but he also showed and extreme desire to get away, with a weapon. So it is not unreasonable to have the fear that he would use that weapon to carjack a motorist sitting in the drive-thru line, take a hostage, or otherwise hurt another innocent party.
What does georgia law say about deadly force?
Ocga 17-4-20 (b):
Sheriffs and peace officers may use deadly force:
1.) to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon. (he did)
2.) to apprehend a suspected felon who possesses any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury. (he did)
3.) to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others (he did)
4.) to apprehend a suspected felon when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (he did)
the officer only needed one of those requirements, but he had all 4........
Now the reason taser’s are considered “less-lethal” is because when used appropriately, you are “less likely” to kill someone vs using a gun. But brooks hasn’t been through the training to know how to avoid certain vulnerable parts of the body, and he doesn’t understand how neuromuscular incapacitation (nmi) works, which makes it more likely for him to cause great bodily injury or death than if an officer used it.
And just to support the fact that tasers can and do kill, there is an east point officer currently sitting in prison for improperly using a taser and killing a man a few years ago.
(eberhart v georgia)
“he could’ve shot him in the leg!”
right off the top, it is unconstitutional to do so. It is considered cruel and unusual punishment to employ a gun in that manner. Either an officer felt deadly force was necessary, or he should use a lesser response.
We could just leave it at that, but that's too much of a cop out, so let's discuss why it has been deemed unconstitutional. For one thing, that's an extremely difficult shot to make. The target is quite narrow, and in continuous motion as the suspect runs away/charges the officer. Under the best of conditions trying to hit the leg is challenging...to be generous about it. But in a life or death encounter, the officer's fine motor skills will be eroded by the stress of the encounter making the shot, turning a leg shot into a very low probability feat.
Assuming a round does hit the leg, then what? The only way a shot to the leg would immediately stop a threat is by shattering one of the bones, and stopping the threat is the ultimate goal. While it is very difficult to find a shot to the leg that will immediately stop a threat, it is actually comparatively easy to find shots to the leg which eventually prove fatal. Human legs have very large blood vessels which are essentially unprotected (femoral artery)
now remember, we’ve had days to sit back, watch videos, discuss, and analyze this entire thing. The officers had less than a minute from the time the fight started, and less than 5 seconds to interpret everything you just read while running, getting shot at with a taser, and returning fire

excellent analysis and what i assume the defense will use. I vote not guilty.

[sallybowron]

Of course there will be charges filed......pass the buck and let someone else say it was justified. No surprise.

We can always count on you to find the down die of a situation. Smiles,:faint:

[John41]

Very accurate. My son is eligible to retire from NYPD in September with 20 years. He was considering doing another 5. Now that consideration is pretty much in the toilet. Discriminating and over charging a person because he is 1 a cop and 2 white is probably going to result in good cops re-evaluating their unappreciated and disrespected vocation. Yes the result could become very sad. But it doesn’t matter. Political ambitions trump everything else.
The goal of anarchists is to destroy order and losing good police officers because of lack of respect for their vocation is the first step. Thanks to your son for his service.

[sallybowron]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?

This is disgusting!!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by petiteone View Post
As a liberal, white woman, professional (Attorney and Surgeon), married parent of 2 sons and foster parent of 6 black children, I am aghast at some of the hateful or ignorant opinions/solutions I read on this thread. My sons were teens when we began fostering (northern state) and we were blessed by their lives.

The local police, however, were after these kids from the day we invited them into our homes. (They were not the only black kids in our community)- Questioning them on where they were going, where they were coming from, how did they get those shoes, why are they walking into this person's drive way, why are they standing out in from of the local theater (along with my bio sons), why are you walking with this (white) girl, frisking their pockets?

My hubby and I spend a lot of time at the police station trying to stop this behavior.

Everyone should foster a black child so see what it's like and what these kids are up against.

Thankfully our neighbors treated the kids with respect. It was the greatest education of my life time and we're still close to each of the kids we fostered. An yes, we put them through college....yes, we gave them free stuff. I'm so disappointed in my fellow whites who think they know the failing of everyone but themselves.




Attorney and Surgeon. Wow. Not only is this woman blessed with a high intelligence but also must be extremely diligent. I do not understand how any person would choose to have eight dependent children. I found it all I could do to raise two and do it right and give them the attention and care and support and love that everyone needs to be a strong and independent person. Maybe she bit off more than she could chew if the children were at the police station a lot. I wish they could have had foster parents who could have concentrated on just two of them. I am sure they had serious emotional issues for being separated from their birth parents. I know that is better than being in a foster home. Wait...it is in a foster home.

With the new community policing the social workers will perhaps be able to remedy the difficulties in the birth home and the children will not have to suffer separation anxiety? And with guidance the parents can find jobs that will enable them to keep their children in their home?

Or am I missing something?

No. I was being deliberately sarcastic. These poor kids. Now they have white do-gooders in the mix. I wish for them the love of their natural parents and a home with financial security. They do not need to be rich or even not poor to be happy, just loved and given the attention of the persons who created them and who will always instinctively protect them.

That is how it looks from my desk this morning with my first coffee cooling by my side. How different could race make parenting?

[ColdNoMore]

Attorney and Surgeon. Wow. Not only is this woman blessed with a high intelligence but also must be extremely diligent. I do not understand how any person would choose to have eight dependent children. I found it all I could do to raise two and do it right and give them the attention and care and support and love that everyone needs to be a strong and independent person. Maybe she bit off more than she could chew if the children were at the police station a lot. I wish they could have had foster parents who could have concentrated on just two of them. I am sure they had serious emotional issues for being separated from their birth parents. I know that is better than being in a foster home. Wait...it is in a foster home.

With the new community policing the social workers will perhaps be able to remedy the difficulties in the birth home and the children will not have to suffer separation anxiety? And with guidance the parents can find jobs that will enable them to keep their children in their home?

Or am I missing something?

No. I was being deliberately sarcastic. These poor kids. Now they have white do-gooders in the mix. I wish for them the love of their natural parents and a home with financial security. They do not need to be rich or even not poor to be happy, just loved and given the attention of the persons who created them and who will always instinctively protect them.

That is how it looks from my desk this morning with my first coffee cooling by my side. How different could race make parenting?

Please read the REASON they were constantly hassled by the cops, while her natural (white) children were right next to them...and WEREN'T hassled. :oops:

Some people simply have a larger capacity for giving...than others.

Thank goodness for the good foster parents like her out there that keep kids out of the "system"...instead of the ones that use the kids simply as a revenue stream.

I also thank you for your post, because the attitude is shared by so many others...and PERFECTLY exemplifies the root of the problem/issue. :ho:

[Dahabs]

definitely justified use of force.. if it happened to a white guy no one would care

So you have the guy's car, you know where he lives, he's not a serial killer representing an immediate danger and somehow this is definitely justified use of force? Good judgement call? I can understand many police officers being confused with all the protests going on these days. While I support the police, I think they need to take a step back and understand that changes need to be brought to law enforcement. Perfection is something to strive for.

[Dahabs]

Sorry, but life (and most issues) can't be answered with just a...yes or no.

And I have never, not even once, said that a LEO doesn't have the right and justification in using deadly force...to protect themselves if their own life is in jeopardy.

From all of the facts, video and eye-witness statements of this incident though...I don't believe deadly force was justified.

Then add the cops actions afterward and.... :ohdear:

Since you seem to like yes/no questions though...I have one for you.

Feel free, as I have, to expand on just...the yes or no choice.



Do you believe that more blacks (percentage wise), especially young black men, are stereotyped/stopped/hassled/arrested...more often than young white men in the exact same circumstances?

My quick answer is absolutely. Five years ago I might have said no but I have since read up on the issue and see it much differently.

I think previous interactions with LEOs might have impacted Mr Brooks actions/reactions. Of course we cannot ask him now.

[graciegirl]

Please read the REASON they were constantly hassled by the cops, while her natural (white) children were right next to them...and WEREN'T hassled. :oops:

Some people simply have a larger capacity for giving...than others.

Thank goodness for the good foster parents like her out there that keep kids out of the "system"...instead of the ones that use the kids simply as a revenue stream.

I also thank you for your post, because the attitude is shared by so many others...and PERFECTLY exemplifies the root of the problem/issue. :ho:

My attitude is realistic, not pie in the sky and and not exaggerated. And I hope it is shared by many. My opinion is educated and it is fair. AND It is as I say; realistic. There is so much rhetoric and propaganda being circulated about things that have nothing to do with race...just common sense.

[ColdNoMore]

My quick answer is absolutely. Five years ago I might have said no but I have since read up on the issue and see it much differently.

I think previous interactions with LEOs might have impacted Mr Brooks actions/reactions. Of course we cannot ask him now.

I agree.

I think he panicked, knowing that even a DUI...was going to put him back in prison.

He shouldn't have been killed for it though.

In an interview with him about a month prior, he explained how hard it was to reintegrate into society and get a good job...once someone has a record.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but we need to strive on a system that allows those who truly want to turn their lives around be able to do so...after serving their debt to society.

One of human kind's strongest emotions...is the one of 'HOPE.'

When you take hope of a better future away, even if someone has paid the price for their previous bad decisions...not much is left.

This lack of hope that things are getting better for people of color, even those without any criminal activity...is a big driver of the massive protests we're seeing.

That, and the attitude of those who don't care about anyone else's hope by espousing "they did it to themselves" or "they're just that way"...just adds to the problem. :ohdear:

[graciegirl]

So you have the guy's car, you know where he lives, he's not a serial killer representing an immediate danger and somehow this is definitely justified use of force? Good judgement call? I can understand many police officers being confused with all the protests going on these days. While I support the police, I think they need to take a step back and understand that changes need to be brought to law enforcement. Perfection is something to strive for.

So you are saying that if a person resists arrests after having broken the law, even if it is not a felony, just a misdemeanor ...that you should just let them go and follow their incorrect information to arrest them later? Or is this only for one race? What about the fact that often police have the common sense and good judgement to stop someone in a high crime area for running a stop sign and find buckets of illegal drugs in their car?? Happens all of the time to people driving and drugging of all races. Why is it race??? I don't know. Do you think that more people of one race are arrested??? And if that were true, are they arrested unfairly???

[ColdNoMore]

My attitude is realistic, not pie in the sky and and not exaggerated. And I hope it is shared by many. My opinion is educated and it is fair. AND It is as I say; realistic. There is so much rhetoric and propaganda being circulated about things that have nothing to do with race...just common sense.

And then there are those who refuse to recognize, or want to totally ignore/hide from the fact...that race DOES play a big part.

One only has to read the foster mom's post...to quickly realize that.

But thanks...for your opinion. :ho:

[graciegirl]

And then there are those who refuse to recognize, or want to totally ignore/hide from the fact...that race DOES play a big part.

One only has to read the foster mom's post...to quickly realize that.

But thanks...for your opinion. :ho:

I think she is wrong. I know of a person who fostered six children. (I don't know her well) She was a social worker and her husband sells insurance. I don't think she did it for the money, not at all, but I think those kids, who had all kinds of issues to begin with, would have been much better off if there were only a couple or three of them in the home. You just replace one bunch of not good things with another bunch of not good things if you have too many children who need you desperately. Yes it is a nice thing on the face of it, but the interaction and the teaching and the attention to each child is way more than the "normal" parent child situation.

It is another complex situation that there is no real answer. I think drugs are a huge part of most broken up homes where children are away from their birth parents.

People who do not really know what they are talking about when it comes to the needs of dependent children often make summary judgements about dependent children that causes them more harm than good. The world is a mess and it isn't caused primarily by race in my opinion. Most of the dire situations are caused by addiction to drugs.

[TooColdNJ]

Seems like a common thread to all of these deaths is NOT COOPERATING with the police. Quit attacking cops, save your story for the judge, and everyone lives. There are approximately 60 MILLION interactions per year between police and civilians (over 16). Obviously, lots of people are cooperating, but some CHOOSE TO NOT COOPERATE. I wonder why?

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty? :shrug:

[manaboutown]

Here are some interesting background facts on the up for re-election DA prosecuting this case who refers to a powerful 50,000V police taser as a deadly weapon when fired at protesters but not at police officers. He is being investigated for stealing $140,000 and sexual harassment. Too, isn't a grand jury required for an indictment for murder in Georgia?

Atlanta DA prosecuting officer Garrett Rolfe is under criminal investigation for corruption - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wKJ725XRkw&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1gHUuEfPyJJmK_OlbVhDOLwq1OGj0dkf2a3Alp8 qugD0Cs_k3V0j6CkwQ)

Fulton County DA Paul Howard accused of sexual harassment | 11alive.com (https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/fulton-county-paul-howard-sexual-harassment-allegations/85-7b67c7e3-803d-499e-bc34-4aeb3882b5b5)

How A Grand Jury Works In Georgia | 90.1 FM WABE (https://www.wabe.org/how-grand-jury-works-georgia/)

[stadry]

last month the fulton cty dist atty said a taser is a felony,,, this month its a different story

[B767drvr]

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty? :shrug:

Not sure what point you're attempting to make, why you addressed it to my comments, or how it pertains to this thread?

The hypothetical you presented and what occurred with Mr. Brooks are worlds apart, but I think you know that. :rolleyes:

[eyc234]

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty? :shrug:

With the facts as presented you are guilty. There is no threat to your safety or health. In the great state of TX we have the Castle Doctrine, you can use deadly force to protect home and it's inhabitants from intruders without the need to retreat. If you are in your yard and are attacked you do not have to back away, you may protect yourself and property. If they are running away you did not shoot soon enough!! Just kidding, do not have a cow. Come on a little humor a great tension reliever.

[Byte1]

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty? :shrug:

If I am on the jury, you would be acquitted.

[Byte1]

Where I come from, a perp robbed a mini mart at a gas station and as he was running away, a COP shot him and was able to make the arrest. The perp was shot through the back, the round hit the ribs following them around to the front. He was transported to the hospital where he recovered and was tried in court. The only trouble the COP got into was that he shot the perp with a wad cutter round (for target shooting) that he had been using at the range that day and had forgotten to change back to his hollow points. If he would have shot the guy with a full metal jacket or a hollow point, more than likely the perp would have been dead and saved the state some money. He did get promoted a short time later and it was well deserved. He was an excellent COP.
Oh, I failed to mention that the perp was armed and did make a couple shots over his shoulder as he ran away.

[Steve9930]

This horse has been beat to death. Time to close this thread!

[Stu from NYC]

You catch an unarmed <robber, rapist, serial killer> lurking in your home. You get your gun, run down the steps, but he makes it outside and starts to run away. You run after him, can’t get close enough to knock him to the ground, so you shoot and kill him.

Are you Innocent or guilty? :shrug:

Best thing to do is shoot him and drag him into your house.

[Stu from NYC]

This horse has been beat to death. Time to close this thread!

The horse is still thrashing just a bit got to make sure we finish the job.:icon_wink:

[B767drvr]

The horse is still thrashing just a bit got to make sure we finish the job.:icon_wink:

:1rotfl::1rotfl:

[manaboutown]

This horse has been beat to death. Time to close this thread!

Neigh!

[coffeebean]

My quick answer is absolutely. Five years ago I might have said no but I have since read up on the issue and see it much differently.

I think previous interactions with LEOs might have impacted Mr Brooks actions/reactions. Of course we cannot ask him now.

I don't think that is the case. Mr. Brooks was on probation. He was driving while drunk and passed out in a drive thru. That is why he tried to flee. That is how I see it. You may see it a different way.

[ColdNoMore]

I think she is wrong. I know of a person who fostered six children. (I don't know her well) She was a social worker and her husband sells insurance. I don't think she did it for the money, not at all, but I think those kids, who had all kinds of issues to begin with, would have been much better off if there were only a couple or three of them in the home. You just replace one bunch of not good things with another bunch of not good things if you have too many children who need you desperately. Yes it is a nice thing on the face of it, but the interaction and the teaching and the attention to each child is way more than the "normal" parent child situation.

It is another complex situation that there is no real answer. I think drugs are a huge part of most broken up homes where children are away from their birth parents.

People who do not really know what they are talking about when it comes to the needs of dependent children often make summary judgements about dependent children that causes them more harm than good. The world is a mess and it isn't caused primarily by race in my opinion. Most of the dire situations are caused by addiction to drugs.

Since SHE is the one who lived it and is the one who adopted the black kids...I think she probably knows of what she speaks.

[B767drvr]

And then there are those who refuse to recognize, or want to totally ignore/hide from the fact...that race DOES play a big part.

One only has to read the foster mom's post...to quickly realize that.

But thanks...for your opinion. :ho:

I'm reluctant to put words in your mouth... BUT... I think you're confusing racial profiling with racism. Cops racially profile those that commit the majority of crime (black), and you're confusing that with RACISM. I've met black police officers that are racist against black people because of their statistical over-representation in the committal of crimes. Racism and racial profiling are similar, but with distinct differences.

[manaboutown]

I'm reluctant to put words in your mouth... BUT... I think you're confusing racial profiling with racism. Cops racially profile those that commit the majority of crime (black), and you're confusing that with RACISM. I've met black police officers that are racist against black people because of their statistical over-representation in the committal of crimes. Racism and racial profiling are similar, but with distinct differences.

If it walks like a duck...

[B767drvr]

If it walks like a duck...

Waaay more succinct!

:clap2:

[ColdNoMore]

I'm reluctant to put words in your mouth... BUT... I think you're confusing racial profiling with racism. Cops racially profile those that commit the majority of crime (black), and you're confusing that with RACISM. I've met black police officers that are racist against black people because of their statistical over-representation in the committal of crimes. Racism and racial profiling are similar, but with distinct differences.

Sorry, I'm not confused in the least.

I'm also not reluctant in saying that the facts show, that it IS RACISM and all of its disgusting ugliness...that is at the root in the "over-representation."

And every time people try to use your line of reasoning...it simply perpetuates the problem and ugliness. :ohdear:

I explained it and showed the proof right here. :ho:


Click Here (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/1784329-post117.html)

Key Findings

Consistent with its previous reports, the Commission found that sentence length continues to be associated with some demographic factors. In particular, after controlling for a wide variety of sentencing factors, the Commission found:

Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders. Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders during the Post-Report period (fiscal years 2012-2016), as they had for the prior four periods studied. The differences in sentence length remained relatively unchanged compared to the Post-Gall period.

Non-government sponsored departures and variances appear to contribute significantly to the difference in sentence length between Black male and White male offenders. Black male offenders were 21.2 percent less likely than White male offenders to receive a non-government sponsored downward departure or variance during the Post-Report period.

Furthermore, when Black male offenders did receive a non-government sponsored departure or variance, they received sentences 16.8 percent longer than White male offenders who received a non-government sponsored departure or variance. In contrast, there was a 7.9 percent difference in sentence length between Black male and White male offenders who received sentences within the applicable sentencing guidelines range, and there was no statistically significant difference in sentence length between Black male and White male offenders who received a substantial assistance departure.

Violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to account for any of the demographic differences in sentencing. Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders, accounting for violence in an offender’s past in fiscal year 2016, the only year for which such data is available. This figure is almost the same as the 20.7 percent difference without accounting for past violence. Thus, violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed to any extent beyond its contribution to the offender’s criminal history score determined under the sentencing guidelines.

[ColdNoMore]

And even if you're a billionaire, but you're black...the racism doesn't end. :ohdear:


Click Here (http://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/billionaire-who-paid-off-morehouse-student-loans-i-still-experience-racism-220226864.html)

Smith said he still wrestles with racism today. "It affects every black person in America. I still feel it today, and it's disturbing," he said.

"In spending time with my teenage children, talking about the effects of racism on them, the effects of racism that I still see when trying to raise capital ... those dynamics, unfortunately, they have been embedded.

This is the whole point of ‘systemic,’ [it’s] embedded into the psyche of Americans and the institutions of America.

And those are the things we have to eradicate."


P.S. For those that won't bother to read the link...here's the person who said it.

CEO Reed Hastings and his wife Patty Quillin are committing $120 million to the United Negro College Fund and historically black higher education institutions Spelman College and Morehouse College.

The donation, the largest of its kind, was partly inspired by Robert F. Smith, CEO and chairman of Vista Equity Partners, who last year announced that he would pay off the student debt of about 400 Morehouse College students.

[B767drvr]

Sorry, I'm not confused in the least.

I'm also not reluctant in saying that the facts show, that it IS RACISM and all of its disgusting ugliness...that is at the root in the "over-representation."

And every time people try to use your line of reasoning...it simply perpetuates the problem and ugliness. :ohdear:

I explained it and showed the proof right here. :ho:


Click Here (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/1784329-post117.html)

CNM... as I've told you privately, I enjoy your perspective, even though I rarely agree with it. We disagree ...that the average policeman in America wakes up and can't wait to apparently exert his authority, especially over minorities.

The police officers that I know, personally, though I admit I live in a "lily white" beach town, just do their job, help people, and want to come home to their beautiful children. That's it... actually. No more drama, they just want to help people, do their job, and come home to their family.

[JimJohnson]

I see it as a cold blooded murder and if the victim was white so would everyone else. Unfortunately, my own white Friends and Relatives don’t believe minorities should receive the same level of justice as white people.

[Two Bills]

If it walks like a duck...

Could be a young goose?:icon_wink:

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

And Ted Williams, paid commentator by Fox, should be believed over all of those who see it differently...because?

As far as being "overcharged," we'll see...as that is also arguable.

I think that falls under the phrase..."throwing the book at them."

1. Brooks was shot in the back,TWICE, while running away and not being a deadly threat to the cop (not only is a taser not considered a "deadly" weapon, it was useless after being discharged twice).

2. Rolfe (the skinhead looking shooter cop) kicked Brooks...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

3. The other cop (Brosnan), stood on Brooks shoulder...as Brooks was laying on the ground dying.

4. Brosnan 'policing' the brass from the gun, before any attempt at rendering aid to Brooks...who was laying on the ground dying.

5. Rolfe crowing "I got him" after shooting Brooks (twice, in the back, as a reminder).

6. Brosnan is volunteering to be a state witness and step over that "thin blue line"...that has allowed all too many other LEO's in getting off.


Knowing all of these facts, I predict it won't even go to court...but a plea deal will be worked out.

Hopefully, if justice is served...Rolfe will serve a very long time in prison. :thumbup:

I also predict, that there will be a concerted effort to obfuscate/divert/distract/insert "whataboutism"...into this issue/thread. :ho:



But back to my question...has anyone (given the additional facts revealed today), changed from their original position?

If not...why not?

Here is how perpetrators are sometimes shot in the back.

https://i.imgur.com/a0RIsl6.png

[JimJohnson]

Here is how perpetrators are sometimes shot in the back.

https://i.imgur.com/a0RIsl6.png

And in this case that would be murder as the officer knew the man running away was holding a taser. The Officer had training before he went on the force and went rouge instead of using his training. When I was in Vietnam I would not have shot a viet citizen in the back for pointing at me with a non lethal weapon. Murder as clear as day!

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

And in this case that would be murder as the officer knew the man running away was holding a taser. The Officer had training before he went on the force and went rouge instead of using his training. When I was in Vietnam I would not have shot a viet citizen in the back for pointing at me with a non lethal weapon. Murder as clear as day!

First of all, it looks like the officer is holding a taser and the man running away is holding a gun. Secondly, officers are trained to consider a taser a lethal weapon because if the officer gets tased, the perp then has access to his gun.

Not murder at all. Not even manslaughter. It's called justifiable shooting and self defense.

[CatskillBill]

This is what happened on a routine traffic stop in Pa.
I guess he was "jovial" too, (as the DA in Atlanta said about George Floyd) until they try to cuff him.
Then he goes bizzerk.

Warning this video may upset normal peace loving viewers, and you'll never see it on "lame stream media".

All these criminals have to do is comply.

You couldn't pay me enough to be a LEO.

God bless our men and women in Law Enforcement.


Dashcam video shows gun battle between 2 Pennsylvania State Police troopers and motorist on Route 33 - The Morning Call (https://www.mcall.com/news/police/mc-nws-route-33-state-police-trooper-shooting-video-released-20180706-story.html)

[graciegirl]

And even if you're a billionaire, but you're black...the racism doesn't end. :ohdear:


Click Here (http://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/billionaire-who-paid-off-morehouse-student-loans-i-still-experience-racism-220226864.html)




P.S. For those that won't bother to read the link...here's the person who said it.

What percentage of the white people that you know...even slightly, do you think are racist? Do these people have a commonality? A certain kind of religion, a place of birth, a level of education, an IQ level?

[ColdNoMore]

"Percentage?"

Much higher than decent people would expect...or want. :ohdear:



Commonality?

Overt and subtle...racism and bigotry.

Also often, misogyny/xenophobia...added in for good measure. :oops:

With most, protesting otherwise and unwilling...to admit it.



:wave:

[fishon]

Don’t let the law of the land upset your bruised feelings.

From nbc news:
“A New York State trooper had the law on his side when he shot unarmed escapee David Sweat, apparently in the back, as the convicted killer ran toward a forest near the Canadian border.

State and federal law allows the use of deadly force to prevent an escape if the officer believes the suspect poses a significant threat. Law enforcement experts say this shooting was clear-cut.”

Brooks was not a convicted killer. He was convicted of battery and cruelty to children.

[JimJohnson]

What percentage of the white people that you know...even slightly, do you think are racist? Do these people have a commonality? A certain kind of religion, a place of birth, a level of education, an IQ level?

I would say at least 85 % of people I know are racist. My golf friends are racist, most of my neighbors are racist.

[JimJohnson]

First of all, it looks like the officer is holding a taser and the man running away is holding a gun. Secondly, officers are trained to consider a taser a lethal weapon because if the officer gets tased, the perp then has access to his gun.

Not murder at all. Not even manslaughter. It's called justifiable shooting and self defense.

First of all, the picture does not represent the actual killing where the victim had a taser and the officer had his hand gun. Secondly there was a second officer there for backup should the unlikely tasing take place and third this was a clear case of Murder by an over zealous officer. I could see at least 40 years being an appropriate sentence.

[ColdNoMore]

I would say at least 85 % of people I know are racist. My golf friends are racist, most of my neighbors are racist.

My personal experience and observations...are very similar. :ohdear:


.

[Bay Kid]

Check out the DA. What a crook. Now trying to make a name for himself. Check him out.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

First of all, the picture does not represent the actual killing where the victim had a taser and the officer had his hand gun. Secondly there was a second officer there for backup should the unlikely tasing take place and third this was a clear case of Murder by an over zealous officer. I could see at least 40 years being an appropriate sentence.
I find it amazing that you can reach a verdict and recommend a sentence without hearing all of the evidence.

[Giolinh]

And a whole lot of new, disgusting, info coming out...justifying those charges.

Not to even mention, the cop that didn't shoot is volunteering to testify...as a state witness.

I'm curious to know, if anyone who originally thought this killing was justified...have now changed their minds?

I'm going to go out on a limb here (just kidding, it's not really that hard to predict)...that very few will raise their hands.




I hope, and would be happy...if I'm wrong though.

More to come. :popcorn:


Dr B---I pray you and my fellow Villagers don't think my reply is racist or demeaning in anyway. For many years, I have prosecuted some very difficult and sensitive criminal cases. This one you opine about is definitely in that category where just one peppercorn of seemingly unimportance could change the direction of this matter. I can, as well as many other experienced prosecutors, look at both sides of this enigma and come to opposite conclusions. I caution you to wait for ALL the evidence to be brought forward and explored by all sides. This will take a while. Although I have seen similar cases, I hesitate to opine without all the evidence. Very sad and moving case--much could have been avoided. Some good lessons for all of us on perhaps learning techniques to defuse very emotional situations, especially when laws are being broken and Police are being involved. I also infer about recent altercations here in TV. Try not to provoke. Clean up your language in public places. Not everyone is as intelligent or can handle stressful situations. Learn to back away. Learn to live in peace. There is no point in retaliation. Apologize. Be a community asset, not an ASS. God created us all equal. It's up to each of us to Carpe Diem.

[Byte1]

And in this case that would be murder as the officer knew the man running away was holding a taser. The Officer had training before he went on the force and went rouge instead of using his training. When I was in Vietnam I would not have shot a viet citizen in the back for pointing at me with a non lethal weapon. Murder as clear as day!

Not true. In most states, that shot would be considered justifiable and if the perp is killed, justfiable manslaughter or in some states, justifiable homicide.
When I was in Vietnam, I worried more about my fellow team members and their safety. If someone was shooting, it would not matter if they were to then run away. They were the enemy and they were killed, period.
There's an old saying "better to be tried by 12 than carried by six."
Brooks shot a weapon that sounded like a pistol at the police. A taser uses a powder charge to fire the darts, there for it IS a firearm. If this police officer does not get acquitted it just means that justice is being compromised to appease the lynch mob.

[Byte1]

Don’t let the law of the land upset your bruised feelings.

From nbc news:
“A New York State trooper had the law on his side when he shot unarmed escapee David Sweat, apparently in the back, as the convicted killer ran toward a forest near the Canadian border.

State and federal law allows the use of deadly force to prevent an escape if the officer believes the suspect poses a significant threat. Law enforcement experts say this shooting was clear-cut.”

Brooks was not a convicted killer. He was convicted of battery and cruelty to children.

He became a felon by fighting, resisting, escaping and firing a firearm at the police. I've seen instances where someone pointed a cell phone at a COP and got shot.

[Bay Kid]

I would say at least 85 % of people I know are racist. My golf friends are racist, most of my neighbors are racist.

The other 15% will be too after BLM finishes with them.

[retiredguy123]

An update to the story is that Natalie White was arrested yesterday and charged with arson for burning down the Wendy's restaurant. Apparently, she was a girlfriend of Rayshard Brooks.

[fdpaq0580]

My personal experience and observations...are very similar. :ohdear:


.

This is very sad to hear from both this post and the one you are responding to. May I assume these observations are all inclusive (represents all races and not just one race)?

[retiredguy123]

This is very sad to hear from both this post and the one you are responding to. May I assume these observations are all inclusive (represents all races and not just one race)?
If the people involved in the protests, violence, and property destruction believe that their actions will reduce racism, I think they are very misguided. They are just creating more racists.

[fdpaq0580]

If the people involved in the protests, violence, and property destruction believe that their actions will reduce racism, I think they are very misguided. They are just creating more racists.

Whether or not they are creating more racists, I don't know. But, it certainly won't help lessen the problem.
I want to believe that most could live in harmony, but there are some that don't want that to come to pass for some reason.

[GoodLife]

I'm confused.

Why would people who think the Morse family are evil greedy capitalists who have built a community that some think is 85% racist ever move here?

Is this some form of masochism?

[Kenswing]

I'm confused.

Why would people who think the Morse family are evil greedy capitalists who have built a community that some think is 85% racist ever move here?

Is this some form of masochism?And even play golf with known racists and bigots.. :1rotfl:

[fishon]

Makes no sense at all.
Must be a terrible decision maker.

[Byte1]

Whether or not they are creating more racists, I don't know. But, it certainly won't help lessen the problem.
I want to believe that most could live in harmony, but there are some that don't want that to come to pass for some reason.

Booker T Washington put it like this:

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

“I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.

[ColdNoMore]

Booker T Washington put it like this:

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

“I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.

As often happens when people are desperate to search out, that which they believe justifies their own viewpoints/prejudices...a little more context is needed here.

Here is that context. :thumbup:

Booker T. Washington (click here) (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/84278.Booker_T_Washington)


His "Atlanta Exposition" speech of 1895 appealed to middle class whites across the South, asking them to give blacks a chance to work and develop separately, while implicitly promising not to demand the vote.

White leaders across the North, from politicians to industrialists, from philanthropists to churchmen, enthusiastically supported Washington, as did most middle class blacks. (Because maybe the middle-class blacks didn't want to rock the boat, which years later the "Tulsa Massacre" showed what could happen...if they did that? - CNM)

He was the organizer and central figure of a network linking like-minded black leaders throughout the nation and in effect spoke for Black America throughout his lifetime.

Meanwhile a more militant northern group, led by W. E. B. Du Bois rejected Washington's self-help and demanded recourse to politics, referring to the speech dismissively as "The Atlanta Compromise".

The critics were marginalized until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, at which point more radical black leaders rejected Washington's philosophy and demanded federal civil rights laws.

It's very telling though, that you never hear these same desperate people lining up & saying "I sure wish I had been born with black skin, because things would have been so much easier/better for me throughout my life."

Why do you suppose that is? ;)


:ho:

[graciegirl]

How many people make a substantial difficulty into a much bigger situation with harping on negatives and hatred?

Who have we met that can do anything at all about what race we are? We can only play the hand we are dealt and try to do what we can to make things as equitable as possible for all. We are not all born equal. NO we are not. Some of us are prettier, smarter, healthier, got a better genetic draw than others. But many of us are taught that we are all born valuable. I am one of those people. We need to try to live in such a way we hinder no other person and help as many as we can, starting with our own selves and our own family who we have an instinctive reason to protect. We should try to help others who need help and not enable those who want to take advantage of any loophole or chink to be lazy and not care for themselves and work for a living. We must always remember that many are born who cannot care for themselves and how we deal with that is an individual choice. Some people are responsible and compassionate and others are not. You can feel the difference in not WHAT people say on this forum, but how they say it.

[theruizs]

We need to try to live in such a way we hinder no other person and help as many as we can, starting with our own selves and our own family who we have an instinctive reason to protect. We should try to help others who need help and not enable those who want to take advantage of any loophole or chink to be lazy and not care for themselves and work for a living. We must always remember that many are born who cannot care for themselves and how we deal with that is an individual choice. Some people are responsible and compassionate and others are not. You can feel the difference in not WHAT people say on this forum, but how they say it.

Agree!