Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

[Meathead]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

Not if your IQ is as low as Blues Boy's.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

This is about as idiotic a response as 'well they should have just let him go and then arrest him later at home.' About what I expected I guess...

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

This is about as idiotic a response as 'well they should have just let him go and then arrest him later at home.' About what I expected I guess...

Hey they could have run him down and tackled him if that fulfills your need for violence.

There was absolutely no reason to shoot him in the back

 

[Blues Man]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

OK if I as a civilian had a person fire a taser at me , miss by a mile then drop the taser and run and then I shot him in the back, I would not be able to claim self defense because the second he started running away from me my life or safety was no longer in peril.

Why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

 

[Pilot1]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

OK if I as a civilian had a person fire a taser at me , miss by a mile then drop the taser and run and then I shot him in the back, I would not be able to claim self defense because the second he started running away from me my life or safety was no longer in peril.

Why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

So, you were there and know for a fact that's how it went down. Also you were inside the cop's head to know when he felt threatened for his life. Got it.

 

[Blues Man]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

OK if I as a civilian had a person fire a taser at me , miss by a mile then drop the taser and run and then I shot him in the back, I would not be able to claim self defense because the second he started running away from me my life or safety was no longer in peril.

Why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

So, you were there and know for a fact that's how it went down. Also you were inside the cop's head to know when he felt threatened for his life. Got it.

I watched the video.

So I saw what happened.

Maybe you should watch it too

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

OK if I as a civilian had a person fire a taser at me , miss by a mile then drop the taser and run and then I shot him in the back, I would not be able to claim self defense because the second he started running away from me my life or safety was no longer in peril.

Why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

So, you were there and know for a fact that's how it went down. Also you were inside the cop's head to know when he felt threatened for his life. Got it.

I watched the video.

So I saw what happened.

Maybe you should watch it too

I watched it too. I saw a thug fire a stolen weapon at the cop

 

[22lcidw]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

OK if I as a civilian had a person fire a taser at me , miss by a mile then drop the taser and run and then I shot him in the back, I would not be able to claim self defense because the second he started running away from me my life or safety was no longer in peril.

Why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

Prog politicians and agendas made sure defending oneself as a citizen is not easy.

 

[Blues Man]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

OK if I as a civilian had a person fire a taser at me , miss by a mile then drop the taser and run and then I shot him in the back, I would not be able to claim self defense because the second he started running away from me my life or safety was no longer in peril.

Why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

So, you were there and know for a fact that's how it went down. Also you were inside the cop's head to know when he felt threatened for his life. Got it.

I watched the video.

So I saw what happened.

Maybe you should watch it too

I watched it too. I saw a thug fire a stolen weapon at the cop

And I saw it miss the cop by a mile. Then I saw the cop shoot a man in the back as he was running away.

When the cop shot Brooks his life was not in peril.

So why should a cop be held to a lower standard than a civilian involved in a self defense shooting?

 

[Blues Man]

Don't point weapons at Cops like Tazers, then fire them at them. Pretty simple.

It literally IS that simple. Unreal the reaction this case is getting.

OK if I as a civilian had a person fire a taser at me , miss by a mile then drop the taser and run and then I shot him in the back, I would not be able to claim self defense because the second he started running away from me my life or safety was no longer in peril.

Why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

Prog politicians and agendas made sure defending oneself as a citizen is not easy.

No reasonable person would think shooting a man in the back as he was running away from you as a self defense shooting.

It is murder

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

This is about as idiotic a response as 'well they should have just let him go and then arrest him later at home.' About what I expected I guess...

Hey they could have run him down and tackled him if that fulfills your need for violence.

There was absolutely no reason to shoot him in the back

Your entire argument is predicated on 'what if the cops had done this' or 'what if the cops had done that' - here's one for you, what if Mr. Brooks hadn't resisted his legit arrest, hadn't removed a taser from the arresting officer, hadn't pointed said weapon at the officer and hadn't tried escaping the scene? Would Mr. Brooks be alive today if he HADN'T done any of those things?

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

This is about as idiotic a response as 'well they should have just let him go and then arrest him later at home.' About what I expected I guess...

Hey they could have run him down and tackled him if that fulfills your need for violence.

There was absolutely no reason to shoot him in the back

Your entire argument is predicated on 'what if the cops had done this' or 'what if the cops had done that' - here's one for you, what if Mr. Brooks hadn't resisted his legit arrest, hadn't removed a taser from the arresting officer, hadn't pointed said weapon at the officer and hadn't tried escaping the scene? Would Mr. Brooks be alive today if he HADN'T done any of those things?

No it's not it's all about what the cops actually did.

At the time he was shot in the back Brooks was no longer a threat to either cop.

and I am not excusing what Brooks did at all, and I have said this many times already.

I am saying that at the time he was shot he was no longer a threat to either cop.

If he was shot during the actual scuffle this would be a different story.

Now maybe you will answer this question that I have posed many times

If I as a civilian after getting assaulted by a person shot him in the back as he was running away from me I would have no legal claim of self defense as the threat to my safety no longer existed because the person who assaulted me was running away.

So if i am held to that standard as a civilian why should a cop be held to a lower standard than I ?

 

[blackhawk]

Rush to judgement is pretty much the default setting on most people today.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

I think it was a good shooting........

He had a taser, he pointed the taser at the cop -- did the cop have to shoot, no.....but will the cop get the benefit of a doubt in using lethal force in this instance, yes....I won't be too shook up about it

Good police matter.......

 

[Doc7505]

Strange isn't it... Rayshard Brooks; white girl friend Natalie White not mentioned by those eulogizing him as a loving family man looking to better himself. In fact his previous record of child abuse and assaults have been buried.
Was it just alcohol in his system but various illegal drugs also found?
Obviously the LSM has spiked any information regarding what was found in his body.
Additionally where is Natalie White? Why hasn't she been apprehended for torching Wendy's?
Today they are sanctifying this criminal on the racist alter of BLM.