[RMarkland]

Cannot agree more than the above post. In Ferguson MO, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and the above Chicago video, had the "victim" just followed the LEO directions they would be alive today.

[Fuzz323]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The suspect should not have resisted arrest for being .02 above the limit...but it shouldn't have been a death sentence.

The cop should not have shot someone in the back, while he was running away... when the cop's life was in no danger.

And NO, a taser is not considered a lethal weapon.

Why was the cop picking up his brass for 2 minutes...before he even went to the victim?

Maybe because he knew once the detectives figured out how far away the victim was, while running away...he would be in deep doo-doo?

And NO, this is NOT justification for citizen violence or property damage.

It (along with the posts we'll see here) does, however, show...exactly why black people across the nation are so angry.

The Review Board up there could use your - Bah I am not going to go there. I will simply say that if this keeps up you will find that damn few decent young men of any color are going to be interested in a career in law enforcement unless they can not find a job elsewhere.

Even as it stands right now an experienced younger officer is going start looking for employment in another field if he has less than say ten years on the job. The ones with a lot of time on are just going to look the other way rather than taking a chance on losing everything because what they do in a given situation does not fit the public eye correctly.

What most of the public does not seem aware of or care about is that these situations occur in a heartbeat and action is required in the same amount of time. Then a group (board?) of folks who have never been in one of these situations in their lifetime sits for months and judges what was done in those split seconds.

Soon dialing 911 may not be worth the time it takes?

[jarodrig]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

But shouldnt the officer have gotten due process before being fired? I do not believe all fact are in yet.

What is going to happen is cops are going to look the other way in doing their duties and we will all suffer.

I agree ..... but like I said, different states and specifically, different municipalities, have their own procedures. Apparently, the actions taken after this incident must have been appropriate for them .

Don’t worry , though, the officer will see all kinds of “due process “ once he’s criminally charged !

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I watched the video of this tonight and what I saw was the cops stopped a car. They felt that the driver was under the influence so they gave him a field sobriety test. It looked to me that they were about to give him a breathalyzer. He grabbed the officers taser and started running. The officer gave chase and at one point the man turned and fired the taser at the officer. The officer returned fire and killed the man.

Was that shooting justified?

The police chief has resigned, the officer has been fired and his partner suspended.

Actually, the offender had placed a drive-thru order at Wendy’s and fallen asleep behind the while before he picked up his food. Perhaps he had placed the car in Park or turned it off. Other cars in line were driving around his car to pick up their orders. That’s suspicious. Especially when it does on for ten minutes. However, I’ve fallen asleep at traffic lights a couple times in mid afternoon. It’s scary and dangerous. I can sympathize.

There’s no excuse for resisting arrest, attacking the cops, knocking them to the ground, or stealing a Taser about to be used on one, or trying to shoot it at one of the cops. That was a really stupid move. I believe in law and order. I don’t like to see that. The man’s actions should be taken into account as mitigating circumstances.

However, it is hard to be seriously injured much less killed by a man armed only with a just fired taser who is running away. The lives of these cops were no longer in danger, even though they were in danger seconds before and facing a reprimand for losing a Taser to a person resisting arrest. They had the man’s car, keys, address, access to his family. Picking him up later or having other cops pick him up later would be the logical choice. This was not a man who had just shot someone and was carrying a firearm. The danger was minimal.

I know adrenaline flows and people get carried away and make mistakes, but this was NOT a clean shooting.

As for the people who burned down that Wendy’s, though, I hope they are caught and receive long prison terms for arson, perhaps aggravated by it being a hate crime.

[cherylncliff]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Fight with an officer, you have a good chance of being shot.

No matter what color you are, or what color the officer is.

It's not a color issue.

After the George Floyd case, not resisting can be a death sentence if you are black. I have not seen any reports that Mr. Brooks fired the taser. He was fleeing at the time and was shot in the back. Mr. Brooks death has been ruled a homicide.

[mjpuleo]

yes, i think that shooting was justified!!!!!!

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

They say, "The good ones always die young."


Don't know who "they are.


Don't know what it take to be a "good one".


Don't know what "young" is.


Don't know why I posted this.

Fortunately, often the bad also die young.

[mjpuleo]

Originally Posted by RMarkland

Cannot agree more than the above post. In Ferguson MO, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and the above Chicago video, had the "victim" just followed the LEO directions they would be alive today.

Absolutely justified!!!! Enough already about our police officers--why don't they make a stink over all the looters and protesters and how police officers are being attacked and killed by them. Capt. Dolan, 77 years old, was trying to stop a looter and was shot dead--put his name on the news and all over the media every day instead of these "animals".

[manaboutown]

Although I have not verified it I read Brooks was out of prison on a COVID-19 release. Had he been kept there doing his time he likely would be alive today. He has a very long rap sheet including conviction for cruelty to children...another great role model to idolize?

As soon as they started to handcuff him he commenced resisting arrest, violently, perhaps because he did not want to go back to the slammer.

[Scorpyo]

Originally Posted by Cranford61

Who deemed him a “thug”?
He had a drink too many and barely over the breathalyzer limit..just like a huge group of Villagers. Aren’t we all “thugs”at certain times?

Yeah you're right. He only had a couple of drinks and obviously was no threat to anyone. Just like us Villagers who only have a few drinks. After all we feel "fine" when we get behind the wheel of a car and drive home. Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm a certified DUI instructor in the state of Georgia. Thousands, not hundreds, of people die every year as a result of driving while impaired. But they and probably you based on what you wrote felt "fine". The felt part refers to physical impairment. Very few people know about the other impairment called mental impairment. So, the cops should have let him go. So, no consequence to driving while impaired. So, no consequence, so why not do it again. Only maybe next time he'll wind up killing someone while driving impaired. Damn cops should have arrested him the first time. But what are the odds of him hurting or killing someone? Here watch this and maybe you'll get a different perspective on driving while impaired.

30 years after 27 died in worst drunk-driving crash, survivors ask if enough has changed - ABC News

[JIMLUPO77]

You missed 75% of the video ………………... Just like cnn !!!!!!

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by maggie1

As a former state trooper from Ohio, I agree with your statement. From what I gleen from the newscast covering this incident, the man had fallen asleep in his car while in the take out lane. In my experince I found that the act of resisting arrest usually begins when the offender is being placed in handcuffs - at that point anything can happen, and in this case it did.

There are a number of options the police could have considered taking in this incident that wouldn't have resulted in the man's death. First, if they suspected he was under the influence, but hadn't seen him drive, they could have removed him from the vehicle, had it towed, and called someone to pick him up. As Steve notes, police are allowed to use deadly force only in those instances where deadly force is being used against them, or others. A stun gun doesn't fit that definition. If the officer had been struck by one of the stun gun electrodes, yes he could have become disabled, but don't forget, there was a second officer present, and the stun gun can only be used once.

So, I ask myself what would I have done if I had been faced with this situation? Based on my training on when to use and not use deadly force, my decision would not have resulted in someone dying. I would have known who he is, thus I could pick him up with a warrant later on, I'd have his car impounded, and it wouldn't be released until he gave himself up. What about the stun gun? Well, he might as well be carrying around a box of Q-Tips, because it is no longer of any use as a weapon to be fired at a distance.

I feel badly for the officer, and of course for the decedent as well. The officer was fired immediately, and that is not the way it should have played out. He could have been relieved of duty until all facts were presented, and then suspended/fired depending on the findings. My guess would be that he will be charged criminally, but will probably be found not guilty based on the totality of the circumstances.

Police work is confounding! It involves 80% of boredom, 15% of heart racing interactions, and 5% of adrenaline pumping terror. We must make instantanious decisions that will effect lives on both sides. We are second guessed, we are both admired and despised, but there is one thing that I can say without reservation, we don't start out a work shift looking to kill someone.

Since you were a police officer, I commend you for good judgement, something that’s lacking in so many of these situations. I read this after my lengthy reply. I’m sure there are plenty of officers who think as you do and see that there are exceptions to shoot or be shot. Those who don’t are probably in the minority, but their actions are often racially motivated. Those are the few who quite possible DO come to work thinking about how many (black) people they can get off the streets today. They are the few who abuse their power and ultimately the ones responsible for these unnecessary deaths, in addition to the need for a guy like this to resist and flee- for fear of the treatment he’ll have to endure after seeing it over and over again by those aforementioned LEOs. It’s wrong and more harmful to resist arrest, but I can understand how fear for his own life in this case, possibly due to his drunken and irrational state, is a real issue these days.

[Indydealmaker]

He was not shot in the back.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by villageuser

What you didn’t include was when the man fired the taser at the officer, it was not accurate, as you can imagine if one is drunk, scared, running, and trying to shoot with something he is not trained to use. Here is the article in more detail: Video Investigation: How Rayshard Brooks Was Fatally Shot by Atlanta Police - The New York Times

So the officer was supposed to give him another shot at it??????

[coastalnh]

I totally agree with Anothersteve - He should have complied. However fighting with police, running away, and shooting a taser do not warrant being shot in the back. The policeman took his gun out of his holster and fired AFTER the suspect had turned around and started running again. That is so wrong.