I wouldn't vote to convict the cop who shot Rayshard Brooks of murder

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

If cops think a Taser is deadly force then they shouldn't be using them .

Exactly

And Georgia law prohibits a cop from firing even a TASER at someone running away. This cop did that AND fired three shots...striking a vehicle with three civilians in it.

He also failed to render aid to the guy he had just shot in the back and walked up to the dying man and KICKED him.
'
The other cop also failed to render aid and actually stood on the victims shoulder

This is all uneducated stupidity

A) Georgia law defines a taser as a deadly weapon, the DA who charges this officer said so just a week before this happened in court

B) Striking the vehicle is only a problem if the officer intentionally did so, he obviously did not.

C) There is video evidence of the officer rendering aid

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

They do not have an affirmative duty to shoot a fleeing unarmed person in the back.

He was armed, with the cops taser he stole with brute force, and shot at the cop with it.

If this is what you fucksticks call an "unarmed" black then this guy will walk easily. No way will 12 people find this guy guilty. Maybe Chauvin but not this dude.

Jesus H Christ how ******* thick are you people here?

That Taser had already been discharged and the shot missed the cop by a country mile.

At that point the ******* taser was useless as a weapon because it could not be fired again. So yes at that point Brooks was for all intents and purposes unarmed because the ******* Taser was ******* useless.

The cops know that because it was a police issue Taser.

And I never specified the race of anyone involved because it is ******* irrelevant.

Like you.

Had he discharged the taser and been running for a while and the cop decides to shoot him, then I'd say that's murder.

But the cop fired his gun within a second or two of the taser being shot at them. That's clearly self defense. The jury will agree.

Don't count on it.

Cops are supposed to be trained. His training should have been adequate enough that he could recognize that Brooks was no longer a threat to him so there was no need to kill him. These cops know that a Taser is not much of a threat to a person wearing a bullet proof vest. They know that it is a very short range weapon at best and they know once it has been fired it is useless until it is reloaded.

Cops have to be held to a higher standard than civilians.

If cops think a Taser is deadly force then they shouldn't be using them .

So says Blues, the Armchair Police Chief.

"Cops are supposed to be trained. That means they should be superhuman, and know things and react to them in a second exactly the way I do after spending days watching videos and reading opinion pieces from the comfort of my home!"

Could be there's a good reason that the laws of Georgia and the standard police procedures of Atlanta don't agree with you, and no one invited you to come in and rewrite them with your "vast knowledge" of what cops should and shouldn't be able to do.

It seems the GA District Attorney agrees with me and not you since this cop is charged with murder.

It seem the Georgia Bureau of Investigations is very unhappy with the District Attorney for rushing to bring charges before they're even remotely done investigating. It's like they think he's pandering to the mob, or something.

So I'm not all that impressed with the DA "agreement with you" that has you all puffed up. I'm going to stick right along with looking for the facts to come out, and silly details like what the law actually says. I'm funny that way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

No it hasn't

All you did was tel;l me why you think the cops should shoot people

you did not address the fact that a civilian has a much higher standard to meet for a self defense shootying than the standard you want to apply to cops.

IOW it's OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed man as he is running away but it's not Ok for a civilian to do the very same thing

The world would be so much better off if we could screen stupid people such as yourselves from being allowed to steal resources from the rest of us.

You have the right of self defense moron, if some jackass was running away from you and turned and fired a taser at you and you shot him, you almost certainly would not be charged with a crime.

Your mom should be charged with a crime for not swallowing you though.

Even I k now a Taser isn't a lethal weapon.

Even I can tell if a Taser shot missed me by a ******* mile.

Even I know that a Taser can only be fired once before it needs to be reloaded

You don't seem to know any of that so who is the stupid **** here? It seems to be you.

There is no way any civilian would get away with shooting a person in the back as he was running away from him

Does "even you" know how long after he fired the Taser it took for the cop to shoot him?

It doesn't matter how long it took. The cop saw the same thing I did which was a Taser shot that missed by a ******* mile

It matters a lot, if you care about the facts on the ground and not your armchair projections of "what he should have known".

How do you know "the cop saw the same thing"? Was he sitting at a computer, watching a video from a different perspective and reading opinion pieces?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

They do not have an affirmative duty to shoot a fleeing unarmed person in the back.

He was armed, with the cops taser he stole with brute force, and shot at the cop with it.

If this is what you fucksticks call an "unarmed" black then this guy will walk easily. No way will 12 people find this guy guilty. Maybe Chauvin but not this dude.

Jesus H Christ how ******* thick are you people here?

That Taser had already been discharged and the shot missed the cop by a country mile.

At that point the ******* taser was useless as a weapon because it could not be fired again. So yes at that point Brooks was for all intents and purposes unarmed because the ******* Taser was ******* useless.

The cops know that because it was a police issue Taser.

And I never specified the race of anyone involved because it is ******* irrelevant.

Like you.

Had he discharged the taser and been running for a while and the cop decides to shoot him, then I'd say that's murder.

But the cop fired his gun within a second or two of the taser being shot at them. That's clearly self defense. The jury will agree.

Don't count on it.

Cops are supposed to be trained. His training should have been adequate enough that he could recognize that Brooks was no longer a threat to him so there was no need to kill him. These cops know that a Taser is not much of a threat to a person wearing a bullet proof vest. They know that it is a very short range weapon at best and they know once it has been fired it is useless until it is reloaded.

Cops have to be held to a higher standard than civilians.

If cops think a Taser is deadly force then they shouldn't be using them .

So says Blues, the Armchair Police Chief.

"Cops are supposed to be trained. That means they should be superhuman, and know things and react to them in a second exactly the way I do after spending days watching videos and reading opinion pieces from the comfort of my home!"

Could be there's a good reason that the laws of Georgia and the standard police procedures of Atlanta don't agree with you, and no one invited you to come in and rewrite them with your "vast knowledge" of what cops should and shouldn't be able to do.

It seems the GA District Attorney agrees with me and not you since this cop is charged with murder.

Yea a black DA charges a white cop for shooting a black dude. Color me surprised.

Charging doesn't mean guilty, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Talk to me after the trial.

Here you go again injecting race into the discussion.

The race of the people involved is irrelevant.

Oh, yeah, irrelevant, because we'd be having this same media furor over this incident if Brooks had been white.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

They do not have an affirmative duty to shoot a fleeing unarmed person in the back.

He was armed, with the cops taser he stole with brute force, and shot at the cop with it.

If this is what you fucksticks call an "unarmed" black then this guy will walk easily. No way will 12 people find this guy guilty. Maybe Chauvin but not this dude.

Jesus H Christ how ******* thick are you people here?

That Taser had already been discharged and the shot missed the cop by a country mile.

At that point the ******* taser was useless as a weapon because it could not be fired again. So yes at that point Brooks was for all intents and purposes unarmed because the ******* Taser was ******* useless.

The cops know that because it was a police issue Taser.

And I never specified the race of anyone involved because it is ******* irrelevant.

Like you.

Had he discharged the taser and been running for a while and the cop decides to shoot him, then I'd say that's murder.

But the cop fired his gun within a second or two of the taser being shot at them. That's clearly self defense. The jury will agree.

Don't count on it.

Cops are supposed to be trained. His training should have been adequate enough that he could recognize that Brooks was no longer a threat to him so there was no need to kill him. These cops know that a Taser is not much of a threat to a person wearing a bullet proof vest. They know that it is a very short range weapon at best and they know once it has been fired it is useless until it is reloaded.

Cops have to be held to a higher standard than civilians.

If cops think a Taser is deadly force then they shouldn't be using them .

So says Blues, the Armchair Police Chief.

"Cops are supposed to be trained. That means they should be superhuman, and know things and react to them in a second exactly the way I do after spending days watching videos and reading opinion pieces from the comfort of my home!"

Could be there's a good reason that the laws of Georgia and the standard police procedures of Atlanta don't agree with you, and no one invited you to come in and rewrite them with your "vast knowledge" of what cops should and shouldn't be able to do.

It seems the GA District Attorney agrees with me and not you since this cop is charged with murder.

Yea a black DA charges a white cop for shooting a black dude. Color me surprised.

Charging doesn't mean guilty, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Talk to me after the trial.

Here you go again injecting race into the discussion.

The race of the people involved is irrelevant.

Yea race played NO role whatsoever in this decision.

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe even one day you'll believe it.

Racists need to think it does.

I'm not a racist.

No, racists think it does, so they pitch a media fit, hold protests, and file charges before the investigation finishes. And then they call the people who notice these things racists.

You may or may not be a racist yourself, but the people you're siding with are.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

how come liberals aren't capable of just saying "yeah 10 shootings in 50M encounters, that's pretty rare? Can we start there?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If anyone is actually interested in getting to the facts and hearing both sides of the issue before rendering judgment - not that we do that in this country any more - here's the statement released by his attorney:

On June 12, 2020, a Wendy’s employee called 911 to report a man was passed out behind the wheel of his vehicle and blocking traffic in the drive-through. Officer Brosnan responded, and made contact with the driver, Rayshard Brooks. After determining alcohol may have been a contributing factor, he requested Officer Rolfe’s assistance. Officer Rolfe, a member of the High Intensity Traffic Team and the Governor funded HEAT Unit, has specialized training in DUI investigations. He has made at least 300 DUI arrests, and completed the 160-hour Drug Recognition Expert course, graduating as valedictorian. After a thorough investigation, Officer Rolfe determined Mr. Brooks was impaired and driving a vehicle in violation of Georgia law. Officer Rolfe was polite and courteous to Mr. Brooks during the entire encounter. Mr. Brooks was polite and cooperative until Officer Rolfe placed him under arrest.

Suddenly, without warning or provocation, Mr. Brooks chose to violently attack two uniformed police officers. Officers Brosnan and Rolfe used the least amount of force possible in their attempts to place Mr. Brooks into handcuffs. They attempted to leverage him to the ground while giving him loud, clear verbal commands. In response, Mr. Brooks continued actively resisting lawful efforts to arrest him. He then escalated his resistance by punching Officer Rolfe in the face committing several counts of felony obstruction of an officer. See O.C.G.A. §16-10-24.

In an effort to place Mr. Brooks under arrest and stop his assault, Officer Rolfe lawfully deployed his TASER twice, but it had no effect on Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks continued his assault and disarmed Officer Brosnan, stealing his city-issued TASER committing a robbery, another forcible felony under Georgia law. See O.C.G.A. §16-8-40 & O.C.G.A. §16-10-33 .

Mr. Brooks, then armed, began running through a crowded parking lot. Mr. Brooks was lawfully under arrest and Officer Rolfe pursued him. Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe,” the statement reads. “Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him – Mr. Brooks’ back. Officer Rolfe immediately stopped firing when Mr. Brooks fell to the ground since there was no longer an imminent threat towards Officer Rolfe or others."

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

If anyone is actually interested in getting to the facts and hearing both sides of the issue before rendering judgment - not that we do that in this country any more - here's the statement released by his attorney:

On June 12, 2020, a Wendy’s employee called 911 to report a man was passed out behind the wheel of his vehicle and blocking traffic in the drive-through. Officer Brosnan responded, and made contact with the driver, Rayshard Brooks. After determining alcohol may have been a contributing factor, he requested Officer Rolfe’s assistance. Officer Rolfe, a member of the High Intensity Traffic Team and the Governor funded HEAT Unit, has specialized training in DUI investigations. He has made at least 300 DUI arrests, and completed the 160-hour Drug Recognition Expert course, graduating as valedictorian. After a thorough investigation, Officer Rolfe determined Mr. Brooks was impaired and driving a vehicle in violation of Georgia law. Officer Rolfe was polite and courteous to Mr. Brooks during the entire encounter. Mr. Brooks was polite and cooperative until Officer Rolfe placed him under arrest.

Suddenly, without warning or provocation, Mr. Brooks chose to violently attack two uniformed police officers. Officers Brosnan and Rolfe used the least amount of force possible in their attempts to place Mr. Brooks into handcuffs. They attempted to leverage him to the ground while giving him loud, clear verbal commands. In response, Mr. Brooks continued actively resisting lawful efforts to arrest him. He then escalated his resistance by punching Officer Rolfe in the face committing several counts of felony obstruction of an officer. See O.C.G.A. §16-10-24.

In an effort to place Mr. Brooks under arrest and stop his assault, Officer Rolfe lawfully deployed his TASER twice, but it had no effect on Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks continued his assault and disarmed Officer Brosnan, stealing his city-issued TASER committing a robbery, another forcible felony under Georgia law. See O.C.G.A. §16-8-40 & O.C.G.A. §16-10-33 .

Mr. Brooks, then armed, began running through a crowded parking lot. Mr. Brooks was lawfully under arrest and Officer Rolfe pursued him. Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe,” the statement reads. “Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him – Mr. Brooks’ back. Officer Rolfe immediately stopped firing when Mr. Brooks fell to the ground since there was no longer an imminent threat towards Officer Rolfe or others."

the reality is though the cops did a TERRIBLE job in trying to affect that arrest.

One unarmed suspect two cops, that's an easy arrest. You deploy as follows

X = suspect

Y = cop 1 maintain a distance of 18" behind X


Z = cop 2 at a 45 degree angle behind X at a distance of 6'


Z draws his taser and orders X to his knees . if he fails to comply , Z offers him one more warning. If X still does not comply Y attempts to force him to comply. If X still does not comply Y backs off and Z hits him with the taser.

at this point with X more than likely on the ground from the taser Y and Z change places and Y draws HIS taser.

This time there is no request, Z moves in to affect the arrest and if X resists Z backs off and Y hits him with the taser.

At this point Z should be able to roll X onto his stomach to affect the arrest and Y MUST pull out his firearm at this point because this is the dangerous point, you have a suspect who's already taken two taser rounds rather than comply with an arrest, it's reasonable to assume he is going to scrap with Y and try to get his gun if he can at all.

If Y has X on his back and still can't get him cuffed then a few hard shots to the kidneys should rectify that situation. If X resists and manages to get the better of Y at this point and puts even one finger on Y's holster, Z aims center mass. This isn't the ******* movies, if you pull the trigger , you aim to KILL. Joe Biden is an idiot to say otherwise.

This should have been a routine textbook arrest, but frankly these two officers were not capable of handling one suspect, nor did they show sound tactical practices.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If anyone is actually interested in getting to the facts and hearing both sides of the issue before rendering judgment - not that we do that in this country any more - here's the statement released by his attorney:

On June 12, 2020, a Wendy’s employee called 911 to report a man was passed out behind the wheel of his vehicle and blocking traffic in the drive-through. Officer Brosnan responded, and made contact with the driver, Rayshard Brooks. After determining alcohol may have been a contributing factor, he requested Officer Rolfe’s assistance. Officer Rolfe, a member of the High Intensity Traffic Team and the Governor funded HEAT Unit, has specialized training in DUI investigations. He has made at least 300 DUI arrests, and completed the 160-hour Drug Recognition Expert course, graduating as valedictorian. After a thorough investigation, Officer Rolfe determined Mr. Brooks was impaired and driving a vehicle in violation of Georgia law. Officer Rolfe was polite and courteous to Mr. Brooks during the entire encounter. Mr. Brooks was polite and cooperative until Officer Rolfe placed him under arrest.

Suddenly, without warning or provocation, Mr. Brooks chose to violently attack two uniformed police officers. Officers Brosnan and Rolfe used the least amount of force possible in their attempts to place Mr. Brooks into handcuffs. They attempted to leverage him to the ground while giving him loud, clear verbal commands. In response, Mr. Brooks continued actively resisting lawful efforts to arrest him. He then escalated his resistance by punching Officer Rolfe in the face committing several counts of felony obstruction of an officer. See O.C.G.A. §16-10-24.

In an effort to place Mr. Brooks under arrest and stop his assault, Officer Rolfe lawfully deployed his TASER twice, but it had no effect on Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks continued his assault and disarmed Officer Brosnan, stealing his city-issued TASER committing a robbery, another forcible felony under Georgia law. See O.C.G.A. §16-8-40 & O.C.G.A. §16-10-33 .

Mr. Brooks, then armed, began running through a crowded parking lot. Mr. Brooks was lawfully under arrest and Officer Rolfe pursued him. Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe,” the statement reads. “Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him – Mr. Brooks’ back. Officer Rolfe immediately stopped firing when Mr. Brooks fell to the ground since there was no longer an imminent threat towards Officer Rolfe or others."

the reality is though the cops did a TERRIBLE job in trying to affect that arrest.

One unarmed suspect two cops, that's an easy arrest. You deploy as follows

X = suspect

Y = cop 1 maintain a distance of 18" behind X


Z = cop 2 at a 45 degree angle behind X at a distance of 6'


Z draws his taser and orders X to his knees . if he fails to comply , Z offers him one more warning. If X still does not comply Y attempts to force him to comply. If X still does not comply Y backs off and Z hits him with the taser.

at this point with X more than likely on the ground from the taser Y and Z change places and Y draws HIS taser.

This time there is no request, Z moves in to affect the arrest and if X resists Z backs off and Y hits him with the taser.

At this point Z should be able to roll X onto his stomach to affect the arrest and Y MUST pull out his firearm at this point because this is the dangerous point, you have a suspect who's already taken two taser rounds rather than comply with an arrest, it's reasonable to assume he is going to scrap with Y and try to get his gun if he can at all.

If Y has X on his back and still can't get him cuffed then a few hard shots to the kidneys should rectify that situation. If X resists and manages to get the better of Y at this point and puts even one finger on Y's holster, Z aims center mass. This isn't the ******* movies, if you pull the trigger , you aim to KILL. Joe Biden is an idiot to say otherwise.

This should have been a routine textbook arrest, but frankly these two officers were not capable of handling one suspect, nor did they show sound tactical practices.

Pretty sure that's not standard procedure on a DUI arrest.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

If anyone is actually interested in getting to the facts and hearing both sides of the issue before rendering judgment - not that we do that in this country any more - here's the statement released by his attorney:

On June 12, 2020, a Wendy’s employee called 911 to report a man was passed out behind the wheel of his vehicle and blocking traffic in the drive-through. Officer Brosnan responded, and made contact with the driver, Rayshard Brooks. After determining alcohol may have been a contributing factor, he requested Officer Rolfe’s assistance. Officer Rolfe, a member of the High Intensity Traffic Team and the Governor funded HEAT Unit, has specialized training in DUI investigations. He has made at least 300 DUI arrests, and completed the 160-hour Drug Recognition Expert course, graduating as valedictorian. After a thorough investigation, Officer Rolfe determined Mr. Brooks was impaired and driving a vehicle in violation of Georgia law. Officer Rolfe was polite and courteous to Mr. Brooks during the entire encounter. Mr. Brooks was polite and cooperative until Officer Rolfe placed him under arrest.

Suddenly, without warning or provocation, Mr. Brooks chose to violently attack two uniformed police officers. Officers Brosnan and Rolfe used the least amount of force possible in their attempts to place Mr. Brooks into handcuffs. They attempted to leverage him to the ground while giving him loud, clear verbal commands. In response, Mr. Brooks continued actively resisting lawful efforts to arrest him. He then escalated his resistance by punching Officer Rolfe in the face committing several counts of felony obstruction of an officer. See O.C.G.A. §16-10-24.

In an effort to place Mr. Brooks under arrest and stop his assault, Officer Rolfe lawfully deployed his TASER twice, but it had no effect on Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks continued his assault and disarmed Officer Brosnan, stealing his city-issued TASER committing a robbery, another forcible felony under Georgia law. See O.C.G.A. §16-8-40 & O.C.G.A. §16-10-33 .

Mr. Brooks, then armed, began running through a crowded parking lot. Mr. Brooks was lawfully under arrest and Officer Rolfe pursued him. Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe,” the statement reads. “Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him – Mr. Brooks’ back. Officer Rolfe immediately stopped firing when Mr. Brooks fell to the ground since there was no longer an imminent threat towards Officer Rolfe or others."

the reality is though the cops did a TERRIBLE job in trying to affect that arrest.

One unarmed suspect two cops, that's an easy arrest. You deploy as follows

X = suspect

Y = cop 1 maintain a distance of 18" behind X


Z = cop 2 at a 45 degree angle behind X at a distance of 6'


Z draws his taser and orders X to his knees . if he fails to comply , Z offers him one more warning. If X still does not comply Y attempts to force him to comply. If X still does not comply Y backs off and Z hits him with the taser.

at this point with X more than likely on the ground from the taser Y and Z change places and Y draws HIS taser.

This time there is no request, Z moves in to affect the arrest and if X resists Z backs off and Y hits him with the taser.

At this point Z should be able to roll X onto his stomach to affect the arrest and Y MUST pull out his firearm at this point because this is the dangerous point, you have a suspect who's already taken two taser rounds rather than comply with an arrest, it's reasonable to assume he is going to scrap with Y and try to get his gun if he can at all.

If Y has X on his back and still can't get him cuffed then a few hard shots to the kidneys should rectify that situation. If X resists and manages to get the better of Y at this point and puts even one finger on Y's holster, Z aims center mass. This isn't the ******* movies, if you pull the trigger , you aim to KILL. Joe Biden is an idiot to say otherwise.

This should have been a routine textbook arrest, but frankly these two officers were not capable of handling one suspect, nor did they show sound tactical practices.

Pretty sure that's not standard procedure on a DUI arrest.

And that's the problem


If your'e not gonna hire cops that can just physically overpower suspects when they resist, you must use such tactics.

 

[g5000]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed the cop's taser and punched the cop in the face.
Did anyone here ever think that punching a cop in the face works result in a low chance of being killed by that cop?
People are not supposed to attack cops.
If I'm a cop and a man is trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

I agree.

I have a lot of sympathy for the cop in this case. I put most of the blame on the violent drunk.

The drunk did not deserve to die, though. But just because he didn't deserve to die does not mean the cop should hang. That would just compound the problem, not resolve it.

This is one of those tragedies in which no one is completely innocent or guilty.

 

[g5000]

This should have been a routine textbook arrest, but frankly these two officers were not capable of handling one suspect, nor did they show sound tactical practices.

If they had been allowed to use a chokehold, that drunk would be alive today.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed the cop's taser and punched the cop in the face.
Did anyone here ever think that punching a cop in the face works result in a low chance of being killed by that cop?
People are not supposed to attack cops.
If I'm a cop and a man is trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

I agree.

I have a lot of sympathy for the cop in this case. I put most of the blame on the violent drunk.

The drunk did not deserve to die, though. But just because he didn't deserve to die does not mean the cop should hang. That would just compound the problem, not resolve it.

This is one of those tragedies in which no one is completely innocent or guilty.

And saying otherwise is undoubtedly going to lead to more black men being shot by police because they will now believe they can resist arrest and just risk that the cop won't be willing to shoot.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

This should have been a routine textbook arrest, but frankly these two officers were not capable of handling one suspect, nor did they show sound tactical practices.

If they had been allowed to use a chokehold, that drunk would be alive today.

I've said that for years. Liberals have caused this. They don't want cops getting physical with suspects, they hire cops who simply are incapable of dealing with suspects who resist without going to guns and then when blacks get shot they scream "racism"

It's not racism, I wore a badge for years, my number one priority every time I went out was "get home to my family that night"

And I'll tell you the truth, I dealt with some bad people, I was a federal agent who dealt with well unsavory arrests. Everyone we arrested resisted, EVERY single time.

Did we beat the shit out of several of them while making these arrests? You bet we did, but in all my time was had EXACTLY three officer weapons discharges on any team I was on. I shot two suspects in the line of duty, and an agent under me also shot one suspect, in the hundreds of arrests we made. And I regret that it came to that, I don't regret the hundreds of times where we chose to get physical with a subject rather than shoot them thought.

 

[g5000]

This should have been a routine textbook arrest, but frankly these two officers were not capable of handling one suspect, nor did they show sound tactical practices.

If they had been allowed to use a chokehold, that drunk would be alive today.

I've said that for years. Liberals have caused this. They don't want cops getting physical with suspects, they hire cops who simply are incapable of dealing with suspects who resist without going to guns and then when blacks get shot they scream "racism"

It's not racism, I wore a badge for years, my number one priority every time I went out was "get home to my family that night"

And I'll tell you the truth, I dealt with some bad people, I was a federal agent who dealt with well unsavory arrests. Everyone we arrested resisted, EVERY single time.

Did we beat the shit out of several of them while making these arrests? You bet we did, but in all my time was had EXACTLY three officer weapons discharges on any team I was on. I shot two suspects in the line of duty, and an agent under me also shot one suspect, in the hundreds of arrests we made. And I regret that it came to that, I don't regret the hundreds of times where we chose to get physical with a subject rather than shoot them thought.

I had to deal with a few unruly drunks in the service. I discovered a very interesting thing.

If you hold the flat of your palm on a drunk's forehead and keep his head pressed to the ground, they often pass out.

It's weird.

As you undoubtedly know, one angry man can be a real struggle for even five men to subdue. You can see those two cops were having a very difficult time, especially since they were not using a chokehold.

I would not vote to convict the cop.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

This should have been a routine textbook arrest, but frankly these two officers were not capable of handling one suspect, nor did they show sound tactical practices.

If they had been allowed to use a chokehold, that drunk would be alive today.

I've said that for years. Liberals have caused this. They don't want cops getting physical with suspects, they hire cops who simply are incapable of dealing with suspects who resist without going to guns and then when blacks get shot they scream "racism"

It's not racism, I wore a badge for years, my number one priority every time I went out was "get home to my family that night"

And I'll tell you the truth, I dealt with some bad people, I was a federal agent who dealt with well unsavory arrests. Everyone we arrested resisted, EVERY single time.

Did we beat the shit out of several of them while making these arrests? You bet we did, but in all my time was had EXACTLY three officer weapons discharges on any team I was on. I shot two suspects in the line of duty, and an agent under me also shot one suspect, in the hundreds of arrests we made. And I regret that it came to that, I don't regret the hundreds of times where we chose to get physical with a subject rather than shoot them thought.

I had to deal with a few unruly drunks in the service. I discovered a very interesting thing.

If you hold the flat of your palm on a drunk's forehead and keep his head pressed to the ground, they often pass out.

It's weird.

As you undoubtedly know, one angry man can be a real struggle for even five men to subdue. You can see those two cops were having a very difficult time, especially since they were not using a chokehold.

I would not vote to convict the cop.

ESPECIALLY when that angry man knows if those cuffs go on, he's going away. Then you compound the issue by reinforcing the notion that police aren't allowed to use physical force when making an arrest?

It's stupid.

I'm not saying LEOs should be running around beating on people for no reason. That's wrong, But a little common sense combined with body cams would solve a lot of problems here, and it would save lives.

Brookes should have gotten the holy shit kicked out of him that night and then went to jail, ALIVE. Maybe a trip to the prison hospital first, but alive.

Believe me, you start seeing videos of people being arrested, resisting , getting their asses kicked , and then arrested and the majority of people start shrugging and saying "don't resist dumbass" and the number of people who resist is gonna drop. It's just natural.

People are ALWAYS gonna do what you let them get away with . ALWAYS , it's human nature. You let people get away with resisting arrest, more people are gonna resist.

Myself, I'd rather beat a guy's ass than kill him.

 

[Andylusion]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

No it hasn't

All you did was tel;l me why you think the cops should shoot people

you did not address the fact that a civilian has a much higher standard to meet for a self defense shootying than the standard you want to apply to cops.

IOW it's OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed man as he is running away but it's not Ok for a civilian to do the very same thing

I think everyone should be able to shoot and kill, anyone anywhere who shoots or attacks them.

Why don't you try it and see if yourself defense claim holds up in court.

I don't care. Gladly. To remove some of the scum from the world, I'll go to prison.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed the cop's taser and punched the cop in the face.
Did anyone here ever think that punching a cop in the face works result in a low chance of being killed by that cop?
People are not supposed to attack cops.
If I'm a cop and a man is trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

Damn, boy, are you drunk?

BLM is going to burn your house to the ground if you keep that shit up, being honest and all.

You really think that smart as a Dimocrat?

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

No it hasn't

All you did was tel;l me why you think the cops should shoot people

you did not address the fact that a civilian has a much higher standard to meet for a self defense shootying than the standard you want to apply to cops.

IOW it's OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed man as he is running away but it's not Ok for a civilian to do the very same thing

I think everyone should be able to shoot and kill, anyone anywhere who shoots or attacks them.

Why don't you try it and see if yourself defense claim holds up in court.

I don't care. Gladly. To remove some of the scum from the world, I'll go to prison.

Sure you will.

Why don't you start today and send me a post card from Prison.

 

[Andylusion]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

No it hasn't

All you did was tel;l me why you think the cops should shoot people

you did not address the fact that a civilian has a much higher standard to meet for a self defense shootying than the standard you want to apply to cops.

IOW it's OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed man as he is running away but it's not Ok for a civilian to do the very same thing

I think everyone should be able to shoot and kill, anyone anywhere who shoots or attacks them.

Why don't you try it and see if yourself defense claim holds up in court.

I don't care. Gladly. To remove some of the scum from the world, I'll go to prison.

Sure you will.

Why don't you start today and send me a post card from Prison.

Well first, someone would have to attack me. I can't "make" that happen. Second, I already know of people who shot criminals in the back, and they were hailed as heros.

In fact, I can post you video of it.



This Asian lady shot and killed men running from her.

Nothing happened to her... AND RIGHTLY SO. You don't get to break into people's homes, and say "Oh hey, my back is to you! Can't touch me! Sorry!".

Proud of that little Asian lady. We need more like her in America.