[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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



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]

Originally Posted by mneumann02

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....

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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


Thanks

Steve

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by kenoc7

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]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

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....

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]

Originally Posted by mneumann02

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]

Originally Posted by valuemkt

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]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

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....

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]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Without a doubt so the answer is yes,

Yes!