Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

BattleCorp

joseywhales wrote: »

All of his actions can be explained as a man in desperation, trying to protect his own life and safety, he did not initiate an attack, everything he did was reactionary. He was not a danger to the police as he was in retreat. He was also recently awoken and apparently over the limit, this is a man that can be run down, can be talked into compliance at the end of a gun, once he comes to realise that he cannot escape the system. He resisted arrest for which he would have faced justice. I would expect a higher standard than death for all those who resist arrest. That sounds more like a death squad than a police force to me.

Nah, don't agree.

The cops weren't rough with him initially. They were very calm. They were arresting him, not using excessive force or anything like that. They were arresting him in a very controlled manner. It was Brooks who initiated the violence by resisting. What Brooks did wasn't reactionary. The cops weren't beating him forcing him to fight back. That didn't happen so I'm at a loss as to why you think Brooks reacted in a reactionary fashion.

I agree with the desperation part. Brooks was desperate not to go back to jail and he knew he was going to go back to jail for breaching the terms of his release (DUI) and that's why he resisted arrest, assaulted two police officers, stole a police issue taser and fired it at the police.

I'd agree that George Floyd's death was more similar to an execution but I don't agree with saying Brook's death was similar.

Do I think Brooks deserved to die, I don't know. Do I think the cops were justified in shooting him under the circumstances, yes I do. No sitting on the fence for me.

He was assaulting the cops, was armed (a taser is a weapon), had used it on the cops, had the capability of using it again on the cops. What were the cops supposed to do, just let him run away?

It's the cops job to stop criminals and this man was in the middle of a criminal act. Brooks was the author of his own misfortune.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Cruelty != torture

Fcuk me. People have been saying torture this entire time like he hung them upside down in a basement and let rats eat their fingernails or something. Torture implies violence.

The cruelty charge is far more broad than that (and way less sensational). I’d actually want to see a court document detailing the cruelty.

I'll go look for you so.

By the way, your definition of torture is a bit narrow. Locking up someone and barely feeding them doesn't involve violence but would be classed as torture. I'm not saying that's what Brooks did, I don't know what he did but I'll check it out.

Anyway, I'll see if I can get any details of Brooks history for you before you have him ordained a saint.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll go look for you so.

By the way, your definition of torture is a bit narrow. Locking up someone and barely feeding them doesn't involve violence but would be classed as torture. I'm not saying that's what Brooks did, I don't know what he did but I'll check it out.

Anyway, I'll see if I can get any details of Brooks history for you before you have him ordained a saint.

Didn’t say he was a saint just said he’s not automatically some sadistic subhuman monster without details to back it up.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Cruelty != torture

Fcuk me. People have been saying torture this entire time like he hung them upside down in a basement and let rats eat their fingernails or something. Torture implies violence.

The cruelty charge is far more broad than that (and way less sensational). I’d actually want to see a court document detailing the cruelty.

Still looking but here's something for now.

Jailed for 7 years for physical neglect.
Jailed for 2 years for child endangerment.

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2020/06/15/atlanta-police-shooting-rayshard-brooks-out-on-parole-past-crimes-include-cruelty-to-children-family-violence-battery-theft-credit-card-fraud-more/#jp-carousel-72374

Again, I'm not saying he deserved to die because of his past history. I'm saying his actions on the night he was shot led to his death.

yourdeadwright

GreeBo wrote: »

The guy was drunk, nothing else he did in his past is relevant to killing him

Why would he drink drive
Why would he attack the police
Why would he steal there taser
Why would he fire it at them

All above are relevant ,
Also the things in his past rubber stamp the fact the police made the right decision not letting him on the lose with a dangerous weapon ,

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

Cruelty != torture

Fcuk me. People have been saying torture this entire time like he hung them upside down in a basement and let rats eat their fingernails or something. Torture implies violence.

The cruelty charge is far more broad than that (and way less sensational). I’d actually want to see a court document detailing the cruelty.

Go read the police reports there public ,

Anyway regardless of his torture of his own children his reaction to a simple DUI was enough to get him killed,
Even a black police chief has agreed with this,

Regardless of the colour of his skin he acted like a lunatic and paid the price ,

Overheal

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Go read the police reports there public ,

Link?

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

Link?

Go find it yourself as I said its public record ,

Stateofyou

The bottom line is, you can squabble all you want about how some of you think it was "100% justified" for "that thing" to be "put down" using racist language while you're at it but at the end of the day the police officer who killed him was FIRED by his own department and the other cop put on administrative leave. Turns out it was 100% wrong. I just watched a press release by Republican Senators who have drafted a bill and spoke out directly about the policing problems in the US. They are initiating police reforms and tackling police brutality and bias. Even Trump signed an executive order regarding reforms (though it was also heavily criticised for falling very short on some issues and turned it into a political issue, shocker). But what is clear here is that you have the top leaders of the US on both sides of the isle speaking out about the issues with policing and pledging reforms. Major police depts in the US are already making huge changes.
So I'm not sure what the point is of bickering here. It was wrong. Cop was fired. The US is lit up right now with police reforms all the way up to the President.

timsey tiger

timsey tiger wrote: »

Well it did turn nasty in this situation, the guy ran away, pointed non lethal weapon, he was out on parole, so the authorities deemed that he was ok to release on parole. I'm not pro-criminal, but this clearly was an over use of force, correct decision imo to sack this officer, for obvious gross misconduct.

We can talk about due process later if he ends up on trial for murder or appeals his sacking.

Huh? There's no logical train of thought here.

He was paroled so deemed not a safety issue and that means what exactly? Please explain the logic in that one. "Ohb your on parole? Well my sincere apologies sir, you are clearly not a danger to anyone and couldn't possible commit a new crime because the parole board think so." Utter, utter nonsense and no more relevant than the reason he was able to apply for parole from prison in the first place.

Pointed a LESS LETHAL. Please read the entire thread before jumping in. This had been clarified a dozen times now.

Please, put yourself in the cops shoes and explain step be step how this situation would have gone if you had been there one at scene. Include HOW you would have achieved each step.

I would ask all the amateur experts to do the same. Try and walk a mile in the cops shoes, gain his experiences, feel his emotions after being assaulted and then judge him. Until then it's all just keyboard quarter backs who don't really have a clue.

Overheal

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Go find it yourself as I said its public record ,

I take it it’s far less salacious that you and others have implied then. I needn’t bother.

Overheal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Huh? There's no logical train of thought here.

He was paroled so deemed not a safety issue and that means what exactly? Please explain the logic in that one. "Ohb your on parole? Well my sincere apologies sir, you are clearly not a danger to anyone and couldn't possible commit a new crime because the parole board think so." Utter, utter nonsense and no more relevant than the reason he was able to apply for parole from prison in the first place.

Pointed a LESS LETHAL. Please read the entire thread before jumping in. This had been clarified a dozen times now.

Please, put yourself in the cops shoes and explain step be step how this situation would have gone if you had been there one at scene

That’s what boggles me: this idea that “omg he might run home and torture his kid” - Uhm he’s out on parole they wouldn’t put him on parole if he was an ongoing danger to his kid.

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

The bottom line is, you can squabble all you want about how some of you think it was "100% justified" for "that thing" to be "put down" using racist language while you're at it but at the end of the day the police officer who killed him was FIRED by his own department and the other cop put on administrative leave. Turns out it was 100% wrong. I just watched a press release by Republican Senators who have drafted a bill and spoke out directly about the policing problems in the US. They are initiating police reforms and tackling police brutality and bias. Even Trump signed an executive order regarding reforms (though it was also heavily criticised for falling very short on some issues and turned it into a political issue, shocker). But what is clear here is that you have the top leaders of the US on both sides of the isle speaking out about the issues with policing and pledging reforms. Major police depts in the US are already making huge changes.
So I'm not sure what the point is of bickering here. It was wrong. Cop was fired. The US is lit up right now with police reforms all the way up to the President.

Well there to go then, if a number of amateurs in suits with zero experience or training say so, then it must be so.

I'm glad you were able to solve this issue so efficiently. Maybe we should just abandon due process, presumption of innocence and open courts then let you make decisions about absolutely every subject that needs sorting

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

That’s what boggles me: this idea that “omg he might run home and torture his kid” - Uhm he’s out on parole they wouldn’t put him on parole if he was an ongoing danger to his kid.

****ing ell

The naivity in this thread is reachibg new insane levels. 20 seconds on Google using the words 'parole' , 're-offend' and 'child'

Try 'social services' , 'child' , 'returned' while your at it.

I won't link to set cases, they are very sad but I'm finished trying to argue with stupid.

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

Still looking but here's something for now.

Jailed for 7 years for physical neglect.
Jailed for 2 years for child endangerment.

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2020/06/15/atlanta-police-shooting-rayshard-brooks-out-on-parole-past-crimes-include-cruelty-to-children-family-violence-battery-theft-credit-card-fraud-more/#jp-carousel-72374

Again, I'm not saying he deserved to die because of his past history. I'm saying his actions on the night he was shot led to his death.

Give over. Looks like 2 years were served, you can clearly see the release date. And charges in the US can be insane. A former (white) colleague of mine posted his story on FB yesterday. Years ago he got in a fight with his girlfriend and left and got drunk with his buddies. Returned home to what he thought was his home with his gf, found the door locked and key not working, put his shoulder into it to break open the door and it was the next door neighbours apt. They called the police, and he was charged with like 8 different crimes. One of those was a felony child endangerment because the home he mistakenly broke into had 2 children in bed. Another was menacing, Robbery (though he stole literally nothing), and can't remember what else. He got a good lawyer and ended up with a single misdemeanour, community service, fine, and probation. Wild.

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

I take it it’s far less salacious that you and others have implied then. I needn’t bother.

Sorry but can any kind of abuse or cruelty to children be anything but salacious ?

Overheal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

****ing ell

The naivity in this thread is reachibg new insane levels. 20 seconds on Google using the words 'parole' , 're-offend' and 'child'

Try 'social services' , 'child' , 'returned' while your at it.

I won't link to set cases, they are very sad.

So whataboutism of all parolees who choose to do something stupid? Ban parole now? You’re going way off the preserve

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

That’s what boggles me: this idea that “omg he might run home and torture his kid” - Uhm he’s out on parole they wouldn’t put him on parole if he was an ongoing danger to his kid.

haha ye he was fantastic citizen, he was just stopped drink driving, attacked two police men, stole a police weapon and fired it a police,

Ye I'd completely trust him running around with a Taser, no problem at all he showed he is lovely fella altogether,

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

Give over. Looks like 2 years were served, you can clearly see the release date. And charges in the US can be insane. A former (white) colleague of mine posted his story on FB yesterday. Years ago he got in a fight with his girlfriend and left and got drunk with his buddies. Returned home to what he thought was his home with his gf, found the door locked and key not working, put his shoulder into it to break open the door and it was the next door neighbours apt. They called the police, and he was charged with like 8 different crimes. One of those was a felony child endangerment because the home he mistakenly broke into had 2 children in bed. Another was menacing, Robbery (though he stole literally nothing), and can't remember what else. He got a good lawyer and ended up with a single misdemeanour, community service, fine, and probation. Wild.

So he broke into a house that wasn't his and scared the **** out of the kids sleeping there.

Well that's me all turned around on the subject. As long as it's only minor child abuse though. Can't be having with that serious stuff

Overheal

yourdeadwright wrote: »

haha ye he was fantastic citizen, he was just stopped drink driving, attacked two police men, stole a police weapon and fired it a police,

Ye I'd completely trust him running around with a Taser, no problem at all he showed he is lovely fella altogether,

It helps to deal with facts. The altercations details are facts. Implying he is some rabid subhuman monster who will run away from the scene and torture babies is fantasy and utterly not helpful to a meaningful discussion.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

So whataboutism of all parolees who choose to do something stupid? Ban parole now? You’re going way off the preserve

You just started that parole = safe

YOU JUST DID THAT. You, not me.

I showed how often your naive presumption that parole boards are infallible to be the moronic statement it was.

It's far more likely he would have hurt more people including police if allowed to sober up, obtain more weapons and possible hostages considering his past lack of parenting skills and violence than to presume he would sleep, wake up and realise his moral obligation to be an upstanding and law abiding citizen by handing himself in.

yourdeadwright

Stateofyou wrote: »

Give over. Looks like 2 years were served, you can clearly see the release date. And charges in the US can be insane. A former (white) colleague of mine posted his story on FB yesterday. Years ago he got in a fight with his girlfriend and left and got drunk with his buddies. Returned home to what he thought was his home with his gf, found the door locked and key not working, put his shoulder into it to break open the door and it was the next door neighbours apt. They called the police, and he was charged with like 8 different crimes. One of those was a felony child endangerment because the home he mistakenly broke into had 2 children in bed. Another was menacing, Robbery (though he stole literally nothing), and can't remember what else. He got a good lawyer and ended up with a single misdemeanour, community service, fine, and probation. Wild.

So basically he broke into someone else's house drunk , and your saying that's nothing ?

WTF is wrong with people , is no one responsible for there actions any more


Rayshard was only out due to COVID,

Overheal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You just started that parole = safe

YOU JUST DID THAT. You, not me.

I showed how often your naive presumption that parole boards are infallible to be the moronic statement it was.

And cops aren’t infallible either so I guess you’re saying it was wise of him to resist arrest out of fear for his life, police having demonstrated they are not above killing someone in police custody? This absurdity works both ways!

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

It helps to deal with facts. The altercations details are facts. Implying he is some rabid subhuman monster who will run away from the scene and torture babies is fantasy and utterly not helpful to a meaningful discussion.

How is this so difficult

Rayshard actions during the routine DUI showed the police that this is a man who can not be trusted ,

You know the part where he attacked punched , stole a weapon and discharged it , That the part is where he showed the police could not be trusted and let him lose in public with a weapon ,

Stateofyou

yourdeadwright wrote: »

So basically he broke into someone else's house drunk , and your saying that's nothing ?

WTF is wrong with people , is no one responsible for there actions any more


Rayshard was only out due to COVID,

Don't put words into my mouth. I'm highlighting the fact that the charges can be OTT and sound worse than they are. If you saw his former charges, some of you would be saying he tortured children and looks like a meth head though none of that is true.
The only thing I could find on google about what actually happened was that he took his own child without permission of the mother.
That said, there is NO point to arguing any of these details. To try and justify his death by the use of force and bad policing. Standing by my earlier post:

The bottom line is, you can squabble all you want about how some of you think it was "100% justified" for "that thing" to be "put down" using racist language while you're at it but at the end of the day the police officer who killed him was FIRED by his own department and the other cop put on administrative leave. Turns out it was 100% wrong. I just watched a press release by Republican Senators who have drafted a bill and spoke out directly about the policing problems in the US. They are initiating police reforms and tackling police brutality and bias. Even Trump signed an executive order regarding reforms (though it was also heavily criticised for falling very short on some issues and turned it into a political issue, shocker). But what is clear here is that you have the top leaders of the US on both sides of the isle speaking out about the issues with policing and pledging reforms. Major police depts in the US are already making huge changes.
So I'm not sure what the point is of bickering here. It was wrong. Cop was fired. The US is lit up right now with police reforms all the way up to the President.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

And cops aren’t infallible either so I guess you’re saying it was wise of him to resist arrest out of fear for his life, police having demonstrated they are not above killing someone in police custody? This absurdity works both ways!

Except I made no such statement. Unlike you. Good choice is words, glad you accept your view was absurd

Stateofyou

yourdeadwright wrote: »

How is this so difficult

Rayshard actions during the routine DUI showed the police that this is a man who can not be trusted ,

You know the part where he attacked punched , stole a weapon and discharged it , That the part is where he showed the police could not be trusted and let him lose in public with a weapon ,

The actions of an irrational drunk man (being drunk is literally to be irrational) who was rightly scared for his life. Police know how to de-escalate when they want to. They know how to use less lethal force, when they want to. We've seen videos of white mass shooters being calmly arrested, given water to drink and taken to Burger King on their way to jail. The top leaders in their government have admitted police violence, over-reactions and bias are a problem. They're working on reform at the moment.

I Am Nobody

He was only afraid of going back to jail,not his life being in danger at the start.When they were talking to him calmly,he was trying to talk his way out of getting arrested.When that didn't work,he chose plan b,which was resist,fight,and fire a taser that he stole at the officer.IMO.

1800_Ladladlad

I read this today about officials wanting an investigation into the firing of a black officer who intervened in an arrest a white officer was in the process of making. This was back in 2006. I couldn't only imagine how many cases there are of officers intervening in obvious police misconduct and brutality. I hope the intervening officer gets looked after well or maybe he will get back on the force. In future, I can see many cases like this rightly rearing their heads.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/16/black-officer-fired-for-intervening-in-white-colleagues-chokehold/

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

Ahh the old "what-if" argument, seems legit reason to shoot someone.

Legally it is legitimate.

Duty of care.