How Is the Shooting of Rayshard Brooks Not Legal ?

[gipper]

After talking with him that long, they should have.

Doesn't matter if he had a taser, or not. He was a fleeing felon. Cops had every right to shoot him.

Yes, but only in a police state. Apparently you want to live in a police state. You really haven’t thought this through, because we see the horrible consequences everyday.

DEFUND THE COPS!!!!!!

 

[protectionist]

]
"Rayshard Brooks video: Legal scholars break down key moments in shooting timeline" --- USA Today --- June 18th, 2020 ...

This somewhat lengthy article was a waste of time. None of these so-called scholars even mentioned that the cop was within his rights to shoot, under the Fleeing Felon Rule.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, but only in a police state. Apparently you want to live in a police state. You really haven’t thought this through, because we see the horrible consequences everyday.

DEFUND THE COPS!!!!!!

No, in the society we live in. YOU haven't thought this through, Did you read the OP?...or do you just decide to ignore SCOTUS decisions, and US law as it exists ? Maybe read it again, this time, slower.

As for funding, it should be INCREASED, especially for legal departments to combat anti-police legal loonies, like you.

 

[protectionist]

Is this lawful under Georgia law? ... I don't know, but there's nothing in the Federal ruling that usurps State laws ...

Raymond Brooks was detained on suspicion of DUI ... 1st offense looks like a misdemeanor in Georgia (correct me if I'm wrong) ... was it a slow night or did the department over staff that shift ... such that police weren't needed to catch drunks actually driving ... with all the extra time on their hands and pure boredom setting in, maybe the police thought they could burn away a few hours in paperwork because there's absolutely nothing better to do ... crime in Atlanta is unheard of ...

Brooks was willing to just simply walk home, sleep off his drunk and come back and get his car when he's sober ... at that point in the encounter, the police could have just walked away and hit up the closest doughnut shop ... the man would still be alive, no further crimes would have been committed and the police officers would still be on duty protecting the community from evil ...

So many lives destroyed ... can't we feel sad about that too? ...

We can, but this post et al has drifted off topic. Let's stick to the QUESTION asked in the TITLE of the thread.
In case anyone has forgot >>>
How Is the Shooting of Rayshard Brooks Not Legal ?

 

[White 6]

After talking with him that long, they should have.

Doesn't matter if he had a taser, or not. He was a fleeing felon. Cops had every right to shoot him.

He probably should have had it in his report as the reason he shot him, instead of he had fired the taser at them and attempted to run before putting two rounds in his back and standing on him to make sure he was dead. You and I are the only ones I have seen even discussing "fleeing felon" so it may or may not apply, but thinking it up as an afterthought doesn't bode well for the defense.

 

[Shelzin]

How do we know that? I saw no evidence of that... Please point me in the right direction.

"Rayshard Brooks video: Legal scholars break down key moments in shooting timeline" --- USA Today --- June 18th, 2020 ...

Thank you. Much appreciated.

 

[gipper]

Yes, but only in a police state. Apparently you want to live in a police state. You really haven’t thought this through, because we see the horrible consequences everyday.

DEFUND THE COPS!!!!!!

No, in the society we live in. YOU haven't thought this through, Did you read the OP?...or do you just decide to ignore SCOTUS decisions, and US law as it exists ? Maybe read it again, this time, slower.

As for funding, it should be INCREASED, especially for legal departments to combat anti-police legal loonies, like you.

The SC is a perpetrator of injustice. It exists to continue the status quo, which is the police state.

Here is an excellent column outlining it all.
The System Is Rigged: Qualified Immunity Is How the Police State Stays in Power - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

I thought cons and Rs valued the beliefs of the Founders. I thought wrong. They don’t believe in liberty and justice for all. They also have forgotten the great truism all the Founders knew every well...Perpetual war leads to tyranny at home.

 

[protectionist]

He probably should have had it in his report as the reason he shot him, instead of he had fired the taser at them and attempted to run before putting two rounds in his back and standing on him to make sure he was dead. You and I are the only ones I have seen even discussing "fleeing felon" so it may or may not apply, but thinking it up as an afterthought doesn't bode well for the defense.

It doesn't matter how many people are mentioning the fleeing felon rule, it applies, and the US Supreme court is who says so. t also doesn't matter about afterthought or beforethought. The law is the law.

 

[protectionist]

The SC is a perpetrator of injustice. It exists to continue the status quo, which is the police state.

Here is an excellent column outlining it all.
The System Is Rigged: Qualified Immunity Is How the Police State Stays in Power - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

I thought cons and Rs valued the beliefs of the Founders. I thought wrong. They don’t believe in liberty and justice for all. They also have forgotten the great truism all the Founders knew every well...Perpetual war leads to tyranny at home.

Whatever all this jibberish actually means, the Supreme Court is part of the government of the United States, established by the American people. If you don't like it, there's plenty of other countries out there you could move to.

 

[White 6]

He probably should have had it in his report as the reason he shot him, instead of he had fired the taser at them and attempted to run before putting two rounds in his back and standing on him to make sure he was dead. You and I are the only ones I have seen even discussing "fleeing felon" so it may or may not apply, but thinking it up as an afterthought doesn't bode well for the defense.

It doesn't matter how many people are mentioning the fleeing felon rule, it applies, and the US Supreme court is who says so. t also doesn't matter about afterthought or beforethought. The law is the law.

Well, I hope this isn't he response when they ask him at the trial.

 

[gipper]

The SC is a perpetrator of injustice. It exists to continue the status quo, which is the police state.

Here is an excellent column outlining it all.
The System Is Rigged: Qualified Immunity Is How the Police State Stays in Power - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

I thought cons and Rs valued the beliefs of the Founders. I thought wrong. They don’t believe in liberty and justice for all. They also have forgotten the great truism all the Founders knew every well...Perpetual war leads to tyranny at home.

Whatever all this jibberish actually means, the Supreme Court is part of the government of the United States, established by the American people. If you don't like it, there's plenty of other countries out there you could move to.

Lol. You are without a clue. Too bad.

 

[White 6]

The SC is a perpetrator of injustice. It exists to continue the status quo, which is the police state.

Here is an excellent column outlining it all.
The System Is Rigged: Qualified Immunity Is How the Police State Stays in Power - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

I thought cons and Rs valued the beliefs of the Founders. I thought wrong. They don’t believe in liberty and justice for all. They also have forgotten the great truism all the Founders knew every well...Perpetual war leads to tyranny at home.

Whatever all this jibberish actually means, the Supreme Court is part of the government of the United States, established by the American people. If you don't like it, there's plenty of other countries out there you could move to.

Lol. You are without a clue. Too bad.

Like you, I feel goo about most cops, most of the time, and I would like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but right now it would have to be somebody else's doubt. He just should not have shot that guy twice in the back and I can not even say it was an honest mistake.

 

[protectionist]

]
Lol. You are without a clue. Too bad.

Gosh! .. how will protectionist ever recover from THAT illustrious post ?

Ran out of things to say , huh ? You could say you came barging in here without reading the OP, or its links, or the knowing about the Fleeing Felon Rule, and just decided to wing it, based on nothing. Bad idea.

 

[protectionist]

Like you, I feel goo about most cops, most of the time, and I would like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but right now it would have to be somebody else's doubt. He just should not have shot that guy twice in the back and I can not even say it was an honest mistake.

FALSE! He did his job as it is supposed to be done - to stop a fleeing felon from escaping out into the community, and causing harm to it.

As for shooting in the back, that is moot. All fleeing felons have their back to you when you shoot them. There is no other way.

 

[White 6]

Like you, I feel goo about most cops, most of the time, and I would like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but right now it would have to be somebody else's doubt. He just should not have shot that guy twice in the back and I can not even say it was an honest mistake.

FALSE! He did his job as it is supposed to be done - to stop a fleeing felon from escaping out into the community, and causing harm to it.

As for shooting in the back, that is moot. All fleeing felons have their back to you when you shoot them. There is no other way.

The Kid Durango defense is a little iffy.

Kid Durango says "Boy, you just shot him in the back!"

Billy Ray says "Well, His back was to me!" Kid replies "Oh,.. Yeah, I forgot."

 

[protectionist]

The Kid Durango defense is a little iffy.

Kid Durango says "Boy, you just shot him in the back!"
View attachment 351886
Billy Ray says "His back was to me!" Kid replies "Oh,.. Yeah, I forgot."

But the cop did NOT forget. He knew the law. Do you ? If you don't, there's a simple solution. Read the OP and its links.

 

[gipper]

]
Lol. You are without a clue. Too bad.

Gosh! .. how will protectionist ever recover from THAT illustrious post ?

Ran out of things to say , huh ? You could say you came barging in here without reading the OP, or its links, or the knowing about the Fleeing Felon Rule, and just decided to wing it, based on nothing. Bad idea.

You don’t get it. So, what can I say to get you to think?

You think the SC is above criticism and can do no wrong. So their edicts are sacrosanct, to you. This way you allow them to think for you.

 

[ReinyDays]

We can, but this post et al has drifted off topic. Let's stick to the QUESTION asked in the TITLE of the thread.
In case anyone has forgot >>>
How Is the Shooting of Rayshard Brooks Not Legal ?

The laws of the State of Georgia are available on-line ... please show us where this was legal ... I understand the Federal law, but that only applies in Federal Court ... you seem to be confusing the two ...

 

[protectionist]

You don’t get it. So, what can I say to get you to think?

You think the SC is above criticism and can do no wrong. So their edicts are sacrosanct, to you. This way you allow them to think for you.

Wrong judgement. Know more ; judge less. I agree and disagree with various things of the SCOTUS. The Fleeing Felon Rule I agree with. Only a real dolt wouldn't. Get it ?

 

[protectionist]

The laws of the State of Georgia are available on-line ... please show us where this was legal ... I understand the Federal law, but that only applies in Federal Court ... you seem to be confusing the two ...

There is no confusion. The fleeing felon rule applies everywhere in America, as do all US Supreme Court decisions.