Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[TemplarKormac]

Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

What Brooks did by punching an officer in the face was an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail (see Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-4.).

GA CODE § 16-5-23 (e)

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple battery against a police officer, correction officer, or detention officer engaged in carrying out official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

Brooks, by resisting arrest, punching the officer in the face and later firing a taser at the police officer was guilty of a felony under Georgia Law, punishable by a maximum of five years in jail:

GA CODE § 16-10-24 (b)

(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.


GA CODE § 16-11-123

As soon as Brooks gained possession of the taser, he was facing five years in jail for illegally possessing a firearm. As the law states:

"A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or weapons when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession any sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer, and, upon conviction thereof, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five years."

GA CODE § 16-11-106 (a)

Tasers are considered firearms under Georgia Law:

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "firearm" shall include stun guns and tasers. A stun gun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.

GA CODE § 16-5-21 (c)(1)(A)

What Brooks did with the taser he stole would have warranted 10 to 20 years in jail under Georgia law had he survived the encounter. As stated above (in § 16-11-106), tasers are classified as firearms:

(c)

(1) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:

(A) When such assault occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.

GA CODE § 16-3-21 (a)

First conclusion: Officer Rolfe was justified in using deadly force to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony" (as defined in GA CODE § 16-11-131), given that the one or more of the above offenses committed by Brooks would have resulted in imprisonment of more than one year in jail:

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23-, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

GA CODE § 17-4-20 (b)

Second conclusion: Rolfe was permitted to use deadly force to apprehend the felon or misdemeanant:

(b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.


I won't dive into the federal offenses he committed before he died. I am making the case that the police followed Georgia law to the letter. A grand jury will likely not convict Rolfe and Bronson based on these facts.

I challenge you, the reader, to prove me otherwise.

Could you please provide the LINK where you cut and pasted this information and opinion from..... thanks!!

The commentary is mine.

The law citations are from here: Georgia Law

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do not think charges of murder are appropriate, but I do think the question of when lethal force force should be used IS and should be addressed. To quote another poster, “anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to be allowed out without a babysitter”. There are too many incidents like this.

Oh, I KNOW you did not just try to misquote me condemning your asinine bullshit in an attempt to justify it. Try using the WHOLE quote:

Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

Thanks for demonstrating the dishonest sleaze of the left.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Obviously Brooks made the fatal mistake of assuming that the Police would do their jobs correctly.

Name what Atlanta policy laws the officer violated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Common sense is incompatible with being drunk.

Add his being incoherent to his threat risk.

Case in point. What makes you think he was going to be cooperative thereafter after resisting his arrest and stealing a taser? You don't reason with incoherent violent threats, you stop them from becoming even greater threats. To you, to the community.

What evidence do you have that he is a threat to the community? That he will be a greater threat? So your only option is to kill him? We aren’t talking about a violent felon who has killed or raped people right?

How many times do police have to go and hunt a suspect and arrest him? They do it all the time. When he sobers up, he is likely to be more rational.

You need more evidence that he's a threat to the community than him assaulting two cops? Or that he started all of this by driving while shitfaced drunk?

NO ONE is a violent felon who has killed and raped people . . . until they are.

Yes, cops have to go and hunt suspects all the time . . . when they don't already have the guy RIGHT THERE. And shockingly, the first concern in policing is not "when it's convenient for him and he feels like cooperating".

I keep thinking you could not possibly get more utterly retarded and useless, and you keep proving me wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

 

[toobfreak]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

The sad thing is that police "reform" didn't have to wait for George Floyd to pass a phony $20, it could have happened any time as a natural matter of review. At least it SHOULD have. I'll give the protestors that. It took a seismic event to get the discussion going. But now that the Left have decided to sit back and allow 70 US cities to be destroyed, allow hundreds of thousands to protest together in the midst of a pandemic, and to allow billions of dollars in damages and thousands of people beat up, maimed, injured and killed, whatever we end up with will in the way of "reform" no doubt be a very bad solution as it will be emotionally charged, PC driven, politically motivated, put all of the blame and onus onto the police at their expense and disarray and none of it on the behavior of people and how they act so badly when being confronted by the police, which drives the bad controntations 99% of the time in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just came across this which came along the news wire in my neck of the woods:

The commentary reads as follows:

" District Attorney Paul Howard only recently CLEARED Garrett Rolfe and the other Atlanta officers in a 2015 shooting, four and a half years later. The DA's decision to charge Rolfe for last Friday's shooting of #RayshardBrooks was made within five days."



What does this tell you about DA Howard? He rushed to judgment. He did so out of fear and not on the sound basis of law.

This DA is a fraud.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just came across this which came along the news wire in my neck of the woods:

The commentary reads as follows:

" District Attorney Paul Howard only recently CLEARED Garrett Rolfe and the other Atlanta officers in a 2015 shooting, four and a half years later. The DA's decision to charge Rolfe for last Friday's shooting of #RayshardBrooks was made within five days."



What does this tell you about DA Howard? He rushed to judgment. He did so out of fear and not on the sound basis of law.

This DA is a fraud.

Were you aware that DA Howard is not only up for re-election, after coming in second in a run-off, AND is under investigation by the GBI himself?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just came across this which came along the news wire in my neck of the woods:

The commentary reads as follows:

" District Attorney Paul Howard only recently CLEARED Garrett Rolfe and the other Atlanta officers in a 2015 shooting, four and a half years later. The DA's decision to charge Rolfe for last Friday's shooting of #RayshardBrooks was made within five days."



What does this tell you about DA Howard? He rushed to judgment. He did so out of fear and not on the sound basis of law.

This DA is a fraud.

Were you aware that DA Howard is not only up for re-election, after coming in second in a run-off, AND is under investigation by the GBI himself?

Yep. Something to do with improper use of nonprofit money and a sexual harassment lawsuit. This revelation only speaks more to how corrupt he is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just came across this which came along the news wire in my neck of the woods:

The commentary reads as follows:

" District Attorney Paul Howard only recently CLEARED Garrett Rolfe and the other Atlanta officers in a 2015 shooting, four and a half years later. The DA's decision to charge Rolfe for last Friday's shooting of #RayshardBrooks was made within five days."



What does this tell you about DA Howard? He rushed to judgment. He did so out of fear and not on the sound basis of law.

This DA is a fraud.

Were you aware that DA Howard is not only up for re-election, after coming in second in a run-off, AND is under investigation by the GBI himself?

Yep. Something to do with improper use of nonprofit money and a sexual harassment lawsuit. This revelation only speaks more to how corrupt he is.

Tells me he's desperate for a headline that isn't about how much he sucks.

Btw, I did get to see the video that purports to be of Officer Rolfe kicking Brooks, finally. I believe it's a surveillance video from Wendy's, and the quality therefore sucks. You can barely tell what you're watching, and Brooks' body is completely obscured by the roof of a car. He COULD be kicking him . . . or he could be kicking the spent Taser away . . . or he could be losing his footing for a moment between running over there and kneeling down to administer CPR. I have no idea.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Common sense is incompatible with being drunk.

Add his being incoherent to his threat risk.

Case in point. What makes you think he was going to be cooperative thereafter after resisting his arrest and stealing a taser? You don't reason with incoherent violent threats, you stop them from becoming even greater threats. To you, to the community.

What evidence do you have that he is a threat to the community? That he will be a greater threat? So your only option is to kill him? We aren’t talking about a violent felon who has killed or raped people right?

How many times do police have to go and hunt a suspect and arrest him? They do it all the time. When he sobers up, he is likely to be more rational.

You need more evidence that he's a threat to the community than him assaulting two cops? Or that he started all of this by driving while shitfaced drunk?

NO ONE is a violent felon who has killed and raped people . . . until they are.

Yes, cops have to go and hunt suspects all the time . . . when they don't already have the guy RIGHT THERE. And shockingly, the first concern in policing is not "when it's convenient for him and he feels like cooperating".

I keep thinking you could not possibly get more utterly retarded and useless, and you keep proving me wrong.

So he just walked up to two cops and assaulted them?

NO ONE is a violent felon who has killed and raped people . . . until they are....well, using that rational, that would justify shooting anyone...regardless of record or past behavior.

 

[Coyote]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

 

[Coyote]

Just came across this which came along the news wire in my neck of the woods:

The commentary reads as follows:

" District Attorney Paul Howard only recently CLEARED Garrett Rolfe and the other Atlanta officers in a 2015 shooting, four and a half years later. The DA's decision to charge Rolfe for last Friday's shooting of #RayshardBrooks was made within five days."



What does this tell you about DA Howard? He rushed to judgment. He did so out of fear and not on the sound basis of law.

This DA is a fraud.

Informative.

 

[Coyote]

I do not think charges of murder are appropriate, but I do think the question of when lethal force force should be used IS and should be addressed. To quote another poster, “anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to be allowed out without a babysitter”. There are too many incidents like this.

Oh, I KNOW you did not just try to misquote me condemning your asinine bullshit in an attempt to justify it. Try using the WHOLE quote:

Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

Thanks for demonstrating the dishonest sleaze of the left.

And thanks for demonstrating you shouldn’t be allowed out without a babysitter.

 

[toobfreak]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Hey, laws are changed all the time, and police procedure is updated all the time. Noticeably, it is not done by Internet dipshits whose entire expertise in the area is "I saw this video, and I think the cops are really, really mean not to just let suspects decide when they feel like cooperating."

In other words, it's not a sacred cow that can't be discussed. You're just a fucking moron who has nothing to offer on the subject.

And you’ve much proved you are a moron with nothing to offer here.

Why are you so afraid of openly examining the use and/or abuse of lethal force?

Curiously, the police HAVE addressed the issue and that is why the Atlanta officer was carrying a taser. Unfortunately, the perp Brooks took it from him and tried to used it against the police leaving the officer no other option than reaching for his gun to protect himself.

I just can't wait until an officer lets an assailant get away on the grounds that he didn't seem to impose no "IMMEDIATE IMMINENT THREAT" at the instant of struggling with and getting away from the police, but then goes on to kill his girlfriend, family or others. My O my I can't want to hear the media raucus, complaints, lawsuits and accusations of POLICE INCOMPETENCE and LIABILITY!

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

''''my daddy is a better criminal than yo daddy'''''
...'''my daddy bees the best criminal eva'''''
...my daddy got mo $$$$$$ for bing murdered by white racist cops than yo daddy'''''

You wake up being a racist fuck

please explain how is that racist!!!???!!!
I await your reply

Really? You don't know? You must have your racism so inbred into your very being that you don't know how racist you are.

You must have your racism so inbred into your very being that you don't know how racist you are.

WOOOHOOOOO--you CAN'T explain it because it's not racist--you just proved it
hahahhahahahhaah

Just imagine him as the muppet in the Facebook Portal T.V. ad - "ME on TV! Ha ha, ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha..."

Third line, word 10, 11 & 12 is what is racists about your comment
''''my daddy is a better criminal than yo daddy'''''
...'''my daddy bees the best criminal eva'''''
...my daddy got mo $$$$$$ for bing murdered by white racist cops than yo daddy'''''

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Why do you expect people who are intoxicated to behave rationally? And they knew he was impaired.

 

[Dr Grump]

He shot the taser at the head of Brooks. He didn't drop it before he shot it. And the taser has been deemed lethal by law enforcement. We've seen men die from taser shots before. I agree with those that say the indictment will not go through as charged.

Your own words condemn him. "He shot the taser at the head of Brooks (I think you mean the cop. Brooks was the victim, no?) . He didn't drop it before he shot it". Couple of things. I said he dropped it after he shot it. You do know you have to recharge it again once it is discharged? So if he shot it at the cop before he was lethally shot then he may as well as had a pop gun in his hand. Tasers are usually lethal for people with underlying health conditions, not as a general course of action. The cop will be found guilty. It's just a matter of what.

 

[Dr Grump]

You going to keep ignoring this?

Because it is irrelevant.

 

[Taz]

Pass a law that says if you resist arrest, you will be shot. End of story.

Great Idea... Death Penalty for resisting arrest

No, the perp chooses life or death for himself.