Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

y0ssar1an22

Akrasia wrote: »

If the use of a Taser is likely to cause serious bodily harm than it’s the equivalent of a knife being used to stab someone

Imagine all those clips of cops tasering people but instead of a taser, they went up to them and stabbed them instead

They can’t say that a taser is reasonable force to restrain an uncooperative member of the public and also say the taser is likely to cause serious bodily injury

it depends of what their definition of serious bodily harm is. and also 'likely' - 10%/50%?

did the same DA charge a cop for using a taser as a deadly weapon? thought i read that above.
if that is the case, there's a certain amount of hypocrisy, probably due to media/mob pressure.

i asked this in the george floyd thread; the defence will prob argue that the officer is unable to get a fair trial due to the media frenzy. i think in ireland, there is a ban on reporting certain aspects of a crime so as not to influence the prospective jury, as they are required to be impartial.

GreeBo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I didn't say that you get to kill someone because they attack you. I said you get you get to do whatever it takes to neutralise the situation up to an including deadly force.

If you have reason to believe that someone is going to do you serious bodily harm (as this officer did, tasers are potentially deadly weapons, Rayshard Brooks was on parole and had no intention of going back to jail which is why is became violent as soon as he realised he was being arrested.) you have the right defend yourself with deadly force.

Is your argument that the police are supposed to just stand there and let someone taser them? The other argument I've heard is that he shouldn't have pursued him. Yes, let the drunk violent man with a taser go on his way.

"Up to and including" wouldnt mean "start by shooting them twice in the back" to me.

Someone covered it earlier, but basically these cops went full on "how dare he not obey me" and lost their cool. We see it happen time and time again in the U.S., they just cant handle the stressful situations and more frequently these situations involve two parties with guns and result in someone dead.

GreeBo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The relevant question is not whether or not Rayshard Brooks could have been saved but whether the officer had the right to do what he did to protect himself.

And he did. Brooks fired a potentially deadly weapon at cop and got killed for his trouble.

To answer your question directly, yes, his life could have been saved if Brooks hadn’t resisted arrest, if he hadn’t wrestled police officers, stolen a police officer’s taser and discharged the taser at the officer. If Brooks hadn’t done any of these things his life could have been saved.

So Officer A fires at Brooks because he was putting lives in danger with a potentially deadly weapon.
Why didnt Officer B shoot and kill Officer A, since Officer A was endangering lives with an actual deadly weapon?

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

So Officer A fires at Brooks because he was putting lives in danger with a potentially deadly weapon.
Why didnt Officer B shoot and kill Officer A, since Officer A was endangering lives with an actual deadly weapon?

People could presume you are arguing now in bad faith but you are not.

You are coming from the position of religious fundamentalism, there is no God in your faith but it is a religion.

That's not an attack on you.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t think it’s rocket surgery. Brosnan told investigators that his partner said “I got him!” And then kicked him. In the photo we can see this is a very forceful kick.

I got him means nothing. All that says is that Rolfe knows he shot him.

The kick could well have been justified. Neither you or I can say for sure whether it was or wasn't justified at the moment. If, and I know we disagree on this, if the shooting was justified and Brooks was still moving after being shot, that means that he may still have been in posession of the taser and may have still have had the potential to shoot Rolfe with it, then maybe the kick was justified. All conjecture at this stage though.

It's too early for either me or you to say if the kick was right or wrong.

That is no fact that is conjecture. The officer is being prosecuted on 11 charges, several relate to shooting at a car full of bystanders.

Splitting hairs now but he didn't shoot at a car full of bystanders. He shot at Brooks and missed with one of those shots.

Jesus. Cops are just allowed to shoot into a crowd of people now to stop one perp huh? Mind boggling mental gymnastics. There are consequences for endangering the public. Your philosophy would lead to a lot more senseless violence.

Yes, Rolfe did endanger the public by missing with one shot. That also may not have been a crime. It all depends on whether Rolfe was justified in shooting at Brooks.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

"Up to and including" wouldnt mean "start by shooting them twice in the back" to me.

Someone covered it earlier, but basically these cops went full on "how dare he not obey me" and lost their cool. We see it happen time and time again in the U.S., they just cant handle the stressful situations and more frequently these situations involve two parties with guns and result in someone dead.

Indeed. The cops shouldn't have walked up to a car in the drive thru and just shut the driver in the back. That was wrong

That's what happened right? They went straight to lethal force for no reason?

Mic 1972

GreeBo wrote: »

So Officer A fires at Brooks because he was putting lives in danger with a potentially deadly weapon.
Why didnt Officer B shoot and kill Officer A, since Officer A was endangering lives with an actual deadly weapon?

what a silly argument

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

Meanwhile back in the real world.......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jeremy_Mardis

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jeremy_Mardis

What has the above got to do with this scutter: "We are talking about the conduct of the police, who very nearly killed a bystander or two with his excessive force."

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

What has the above got to do with this scutter: "We are talking about the conduct of the police, who very nearly killed a bystander or two with his excessive force."

Killing innocent people while trying to use deadly force. Yes, it is a crime, with jurisprudence.

Rolfe fired 3 times. One of these bullets hit a car full of people with no involvement in the altercation. Had 2 other bullets not hit Brooks in the back, who was running between Rolfe and the innocents, the bullets would have also hit the passenger car. In addition, had he not hit Brooks he would have kept shooting in this manner, in excess of 3 times.

1800_Ladladlad

The stepmother of Garrett Rolfe, the cop charged with murder in the death of Brooks, was fired from her job for being his ... stepmother. Is this is really the way we're going now? So the lives of innocent relatives can be ruined because of the misdeeds or wrong doings of an innocent cop being used to make an example out of. Sins of the father etc. This is beyond pathetic.

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

what a silly argument

Don’t see how: it is clearly based on the faulty logic of some posters here defending the cop with absolutes and false impressions of when and how to use deadly force. Users have said, when a cop sees someone using deadly force, even if it isn’t against them, they should and are “well within their right” to use deadly force. Ergo, Brosnan should have fired at Rolfe, if this broken logic is used. So, perhaps it’s better of posters to think more critically about these gross simplifications.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

Killing innocent people while trying to use deadly force. Yes, it is a crime, with jurisprudence.

Rolfe fired 3 times. One of these bullets hit a car full of people with no involvement in the altercation. Had 2 other bullets not hit Brooks in the back, who was running between Rolfe and the innocents, the bullets would have also hit the passenger car. In addition, had he not hit Brooks he would have kept shooting in this manner, in excess of 3 times.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. If Rolfe hadn't neutralised Brooks he might have hijacked the car with three passengers and drove them headfirst into a 40ft lorry killing them all. Meanwhile back in the real world.........

Rodin

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The stepmother of Garrett Rolfe, the cop charged with murder in the death of Brooks, was fired from her job for being his ... stepmother. Is this is really the way we're going now? So the lives of relatives, friends, and family of innocent cops or those people who get canceled, are not safe? Sins of the father etc. This is beyond pathetic.

I'd like to think she could sue for unfair dismissal

clubberlang12

Overheal wrote: »

Don’t see how: it is clearly based on the faulty logic of some posters here defending the cop with absolutes and false impressions of when and how to use deadly force. Users have said, when a cop sees someone using deadly force, even if it isn’t against them, they should and are “well within their right” to use deadly force. Ergo, Brosnan should have fired at Rolfe, if this broken logic is used. So, perhaps it’s better of posters to think more critically about these gross simplifications.

Let's call in Officer C for back up, to shoot Officer B who endangered the life of Officer A, who endangered the life of member of the public who had committed a crime against Officer A and B.

Hold on.........now we need Officer D for back up.

Things have got so pedantic that posters are actually given credibility to some completely illogical points of argument.

For the record, I don't think Rolfe should have shoot Brooks at that moment.

Overheal

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The stepmother of Garrett Rolfe, the cop charged with murder in the death of Brooks, was fired from her job for being his ... stepmother. Is this is really the way we're going now? So the lives of innocent relatives can be ruined because of the misdeeds or wrong doings of an innocent cop being used to make an example out of. Sins of the father etc. This is beyond pathetic.

Do you have a link?

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. If Rolfe hadn't neutralised Brooks he might have hijacked the car with three passengers and drove them headfirst into a 40ft lorry killing them all. Meanwhile back in the real world.........

In the real world Rolfe fired 3 bullets in the direction of a passenger car and endangered innocent lives.

I don’t know why you are so adamantly against admitting this.

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

I'd like to think she could sue for unfair dismissal

Even if true probably not. It’s the rust belt. These are right to work states.

Overheal

clubberlang12 wrote: »

Let's call in Officer C for back up, to shoot Officer B who endangered the life of Officer A, who endangered the life of member of the public who had committed a crime against Officer A and B.

Hold on.........now we need Officer D for back up.

Things have got so pedantic that posters are actually given credibility to some completely illogical points of argument.

For the record, I don't think Rolfe should have shoot Brooks at that moment.

Yes see you can understand why there isn’t just a blanket “threat of body harm = right to use deadly force” rule. That’s what the poster was highlighting and criticizing from users in this thread, who continually wax over the reality of the situation, the bystanders, etc. to say “well he was well within his rights to kill him” etc.

punisher5112

Absolutely laughable all the internet heroes on here, none of you were there and had a split second to decide, in that situation you are trained to take out the threat.

Someone running can easily be a threat as they can stop or turn around at any time too.....

Many an officer shot, wounded or killed by runners.

Overheal

punisher5112 wrote: »

Absolutely laughable all the internet heroes on here, none of you were there and had a split second to decide, in that situation you are trained to take out the threat.

Someone running can easily be a threat as they can stop or turn around at any time too.....

Many an officer shot, wounded or killed by runners.

So... should there or should there not be an investigation, discussion, hearing, trial, either way?

I’m not sure what you want, except your post appears to be evoking an effort to shut down conversation about it wholesale, which is far from constructive.

Manic Moran

Stateofyou wrote: »

Yes, it may have been semi-automatic. Still, these are not used for hunters hunting animals. They are for protection to kill people if necessary, or if you're a person with criminal intent, to kill. It's actually scary to be in a shop getting camping grub and then seeing a bunch of guns designed to kill up on the walls and in cases.

Semi-autos are very commonly used for hunting animals.
Indeed, if you look at the fine print of Canada's recent ban on "military style" weapons, you will see that there are exceptions for the First Nations people for the specific purpose of hunting.
https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-news/exception-made-for-indigenous-hunters-from-govts-assault-style-weapons-ban

One side note on tasers. Tasers are not normally fired 'on the run', as it were, as they're a tad difficult to aim when doing so. One can imagine what would happen if one of the taser barbs were to enter one's eye, let alone enter the eye and then discharge the voltage. I think that might reach the level of serious bodily injury which could warrant the use of lethal force.

Another condemnation of inadequate police training. He clearly should have known how many there were and been able to process how many were shot.

Speaking as someone who has been in a similar position, I assure you it's hard enough to keep track of how many times you've fired your own weapon, let alone anyone else's.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Yes see you can understand why there isn’t just a blanket “threat of body harm = right to use deadly force” rule. That’s what the poster was highlighting and criticizing from users in this thread, who continually wax over the reality of the situation, the bystanders, etc. to say “well he was well within his rights to kill him” etc.

You keep linking other instances of police brutality or murder committed by the police. Each situation has to be judged on its own merits.

The cops in the link you posted where the kid was shot in the car isn't remotely like the Brooks shooting. There was no self-defence aspect of the car shooting.

A case can be made that Brooks' shooting was justified in self-defence. Whether that case would be upheld, time will tell. There's no argument to be made for defending the police the case that you linked. It's like linking the George Floyd case to the Brooks case. They aren't remotely similar.

Keep to the topic. This is about the Brooks shooting. Just because the police did wrong elsewhere in the States doesn't necessarily mean that the cops in the Brooks case weren't justified in their actions IN THE BROOKS CASE.

Overheal wrote: »

So... should there or should there not be an investigation, discussion, hearing, trial, either way?

I’m not sure what you want, except your post appears to be evoking an effort to shut down conversation about it wholesale, which is far from constructive.

You wouldn't accept the result of a trial unless it ended in the conviction of the cops. If the cops were exhonerated, you still wouldn't accept the verdict.

Overheal

No the cops haven’t been convicted yet. I support due process for this case.

What your conflating is the acknowledgement that our justice system is broken in favor of police. This doesn’t mean the law won’t get it right either way.

You don’t like these other examples because they poke holes in the narrative you/others latched to. Certainly many details are different between the two cases but in sum an officer was charged for killing an innocent under the color of law (in the linked to case from Louisiana). In either case it’s first up to the courts Or a jury to determine if the force was excessive or improper. If it was, as determined by a jury, then it’s a straight line to arguing that he endangered the lives of the public in a criminally negligent manner.

Unfortunately it’s not the military. There are 17k++ (nearly 18k) departments. The military has the uniform code of military justice, they have their own set of laws and an internal justice system. No such system exists for police. We all appreciate why they feel they shouldn’t be held to the same criminal justice system as civilians (which to me suggests they don’t place faith in their system of justice, which, is a lot to unpack) but they are. I also wanted to highlight the other case because it resulted in a conviction, and stiff sentences yet that were appropriate to the officers in question, mitigation of the color of law, and notably no death penalty despite capital punishment being legal in Louisiana where the case occurred (users on thread concerned about cops getting death penalty - extremely remote to utterly negligible chance of that)

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

No the cops haven’t been convicted yet. I support due process for this case.

What your conflating is the acknowledgement that our justice system is broken in favor of police. This doesn’t mean the law won’t get it right either way.

You are correct. I don't have much faith in your justice system. I think it's broken and doesn't favour anybody at all except rich people.

You don’t like these other examples because they poke holes in the narrative you/others latched to. Certainly many details are different between the two cases but in sum an officer was charged for killing an innocent under the color of law. In either case it’s first up to the courts Or a jury to determine if the force was excessive or improper. If it was, as determined by a jury, then it’s a straight line to arguing that he endangered the lives of the public in a criminally negligent manner.

I've no problem with those links per se. If cops do scummy or negligent things, then I'm fine with them being jailed and having the incident publicised. I'm not denying that those things happen. I just think they are not relevant to what happened on the night Brooks was shot. You are using them to insinuate that all cops are sh1te at their job or certainly a large portion of them are.

I am not painting a narrative that all cops are competent and do the right thing, far from it. There are hundreds if not thousands of scummy cops or negligent cops if you prefer that word. Just as there are hundreds if not thousands of scummy plasterers, bricklayers and health and safety officers.

But I'm not talking about that. I have consistently talked about the Brooks case and the things that happened between Brooks and the cops because that is all that is relevant here.

It's my view (and I acknowledge that I could be wrong) that the fact that Brooks had the taser and shot it at the police means that the cops were justified to shoot Brooks.

expectationlost

https://www.irishpost.com/news/irish-american-cop-charged-in-relation-to-murder-of-rayshard-brooks-187105 watching the footage what is it that Brooks is saying as he is fighting "its the r..." he says it twice.

Overheal

“ You are using them to insinuate that all cops are sh1te at their job or certainly a large portion of them are.”

No I’ve not said anything so sweeping. I don’t know if you are conflating me with others. It just happens that we have numerous examples (dozens, hundreds, thousands, more) to draw on, from abusing citations as a means of bleeding a community dry, to improper weapon discharge, up to cases of pure animosity or brutality. There are tons and tons of good cops and I’ve said as much and spoken of as much recently. I engage with my local police, often in a positive manner, including a 1 on 1 with a chief of police back in February. There are certainly good departments with good culture (kinda hard not to find them among 17k+ depts) but still a lot of other departments have broken culture and I have receipts for that as well. When we see Blue Flu and when there’s a blue wall of silence it’s hard not to be cynical. Of course most departments and unions would decline to comment; but when 3 officers got sick from a poorly cleaned milkshake machine similar unions and departments leapt to call it a deliberate assassination/poisoning attempt by shake shack employees. Examples like that make the silence more palpable.

GreeBo

weldoninhio wrote: »

He probably kicked him to ascertain if he was out cold or awake. If he was awake he would still be a threat.

Lol, so kicking someone is a valid way to check their status now?
Maybe he should have just shot him in the head, to confirm that he was no longer a threat?

Overheal

expectationlost wrote: »

https://www.irishpost.com/news/irish-american-cop-charged-in-relation-to-murder-of-rayshard-brooks-187105 watching the footage what is it that Brooks is saying as he is fighting "its the r..." he says it twice.

He’s saying “mister Rolfe.”

GreeBo

Mic 1972 wrote: »

what a silly argument

How convenient for you.

So explain why the cop shooting at innocent bystanders is grand, but Brooks firing a taser at cops is a death sentence?