Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

GreeBo

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.

That's kinda the point, it shows how illogical the argument defending the cops is.

GreeBo

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.

If you are saying they are trained to shoot in scenarios like this, then they training is at fault and Brooks family should sue.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

“ 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.

Again though, that's evidence that many police officers behave illegally and have used unjustified force.

It's not evidence that the police officers behaved illegally in the Brooks incident.

Each case on its own merits.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

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

I'm going to call what you are saying above a complete lie.

The cops didn't shoot at innocent bystanders. The cops shot at Brooks. They missed with one shot and that hit the car of an innocent bystander.

That's not remotely the same as shooting at innocent bystanders.

Brooks could have seriously injured the cops with the taser so my view is (and again I could be wrong) the cops were justified in shooting Brooks. That shooting resulted in the death of Brooks.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

That's kinda the point, it shows how illogical the argument defending the cops is.

You are judge and jury I see.

Why is it fine for you to condemn the cops in this instance but wrong for us to defend the cops in this instance?

It is at least arguable that the cops were justified in the shooting. Whether that argument will hold up in the fullness of time remains to be seen.

In my mind it isn't illogical to defend the cops in this instance. There was a physical assault by someone resisting lawful arrest, the theft by force of a police issue taser, and the firing of same deadly weapon at the cops. That at least makes an argument for responding with force to protect the cops life.

At least I have the guts to say that I could be wrong. You could be wrong also.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Again though, that's evidence that many police officers behave illegally and have used unjustified force.

It's not evidence that the police officers behaved illegally in the Brooks incident.

Each case on its own merits.

It informs this case.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's not remotely the same as shooting at innocent bystanders.

The point is that is *exactly* the same from the bullet and the innocent bystanders point of view, which is why it shouldnt have been the cops reaction.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are judge and jury I see.

Why is it fine for you to condemn the cops in this instance but wrong for us to defend the cops in this instance?

It is at least arguable that the cops were justified in the shooting. Whether that argument will hold up in the fullness of time remains to be seen.

In my mind it isn't illogical to defend the cops in this instance. There was a physical assault by someone resisting lawful arrest, the theft by force of a police issue taser, and the firing of same deadly weapon at the cops. That at least makes an argument for responding with force to protect the cops life.

At least I have the guts to say that I could be wrong. You could be wrong also.

I would have thought this was obvious but here goes.

The cops killed someone, Brooks didnt kill anyone.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm going to call what you are saying above a complete lie.

The cops didn't shoot at innocent bystanders. The cops shot at Brooks. They missed with one shot and that hit the car of an innocent bystander.

That's not remotely the same as shooting at innocent bystanders.

Brooks could have seriously injured the cops with the taser so my view is (and again I could be wrong) the cops were justified in shooting Brooks. That shooting resulted in the death of Brooks.

Why didnt they taser him, if his taser was a threat to them, surely theirs was exactly an equal threat to him (more so in that they were chasing him compared to him firing blindly)

Overheal

GreeBo wrote: »

Why didnt they taser him, if his taser was a threat to them, surely theirs was exactly an equal threat to him (more so in that they were chasing him compared to him firing blindly)

The other taser was deployed.

According to the DAs office the tasers only has 2 shots each, we hear 3 of these shots in quick succession then a 4th right before the handgun is fired.

Many people said ITT the tasers had 3 shots each but I haven’t seen definitive proof either way.

This was also used in reasoning the prosecution: that the taser having been fired twice was empty and no longer a deadly threat when Rolfe opened fire in the direction of Brooks and innocents.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

It informs this case.

I disagree.

It gives background to the problems in the police force in the States but it's not directly relevant to the chain of events in the Brooks case.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

I would have thought this was obvious but here goes.

The cops killed someone, Brooks didnt kill anyone.

Even if you don't agree with it in the Brooks case, do you not at least acknowledge that there may be occasions where a cop can kill someone to protect their own life?

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

I disagree.

It gives background to the problems in the police force in the States but it's not directly relevant to the chain of events in the Brooks case.

I’ll rephrase: it informs the thread, and people saying there’s no way to interpret this as unlawful use of force, generalizing that cops can’t be held as criminals for doing their job irrespective of collateral damage or loss of life.

There’s IMHO no construction in defending this case against prosecution. Clearly there is enough uncertainty and factors that this case should be decided before the courts in full view of all the evidence, policy, procedures, law, etc.

Mic 1972

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

Brooke firing a taser at cops is the worst decision he could possible take, what was he thinking? This was always going to end up with a bullet in his body. Sorry but everyone is responsible for their own actions.

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Brooke firing a taser at cops is the worst decision he could possible take, what was he thinking? This was always going to end up with a bullet in his body. Sorry but everyone is responsible for their own actions.

Yes even Fmr. Officers Branson and Rolfe.

Mic 1972

Overheal wrote: »

Yes even Fmr. Officers Branson and Rolfe.

But somehow they are the only ones being accused of wrong doing
If BLM means getting away with stuff like firing at cops then I doubt the black community will have anything to gain from this. They should be the ones distancing themselves from this. Brooke is very bad publicity for the BLM movement

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

But somehow they are the only ones being accused of wrong doing
If BLM means getting away with stuff like firing at cops then I doubt the black community will have anything to gain from this. They should be the ones distancing themselves from this. Brooke is very bad publicity for the BLM movement

Because Rayshard Brooks, in case you didn’t know, is dead. It’s hard to prosecute dead people.

Rodin

I think all that need to be said about this case, on both sides of the fence, has all been said many times.

punisher5112

Amazing how this gets so much traction and more pressing issues in Ireland aren't discussed at all....

Tiring the same argument all the time.

He was a convicted criminal, he fought 2 officers and stole one weapon.

Did he need to die no but he chose to do what he did and that's a consequence of his own actions.

mynamejeff

of course brooks could have stopped fighting and accepted the consequences of his actions


but according to some here the cops would have killed him anyway and he had to fight them

only one person responsible for the out come here and its brooks

expectationlost

Overheal wrote: »

He’s saying “mister Rolfe.”

oh right the name of the officer

joe40

punisher5112 wrote: »

Amazing how this gets so much traction and more pressing issues in Ireland aren't discussed at all....

Tiring the same argument all the time.

He was a convicted criminal, he fought 2 officers and stole one weapon.

Did he need to die no but he chose to do what he did and that's a consequence of his own actions.

It's only getting attention here because people are choosing to post comments here.

The mainstream media in Ireland has largely moved on from this story.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

I’ll rephrase: it informs the thread, and people saying there’s no way to interpret this as unlawful use of force, generalizing that cops can’t be held as criminals for doing their job irrespective of collateral damage or loss of life.

There’s IMHO no construction in defending this case against prosecution. Clearly there is enough uncertainty and factors that this case should be decided before the courts in full view of all the evidence, policy, procedures, law, etc.

We agree on something. I'm cool with that.

He could be convicted but if he is not convicted, will Rolfe be rehired and given back pay?

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

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

But according to people here, being fired is in itself proof of wrong doing

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

We agree on something. I'm cool with that.

He could be convicted but if he is not convicted, will Rolfe be rehired and given back pay?

I doubt it, because there’s seeming probable cause here for termination even if it doesn’t rise to criminal conviction.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

But according to people here, being fired is in itself proof of wrong doing

Well, it is. The standards for termination and criminal charges differ.

ronivek

punisher5112 wrote: »

Amazing how this gets so much traction and more pressing issues in Ireland aren't discussed at all....

Tiring the same argument all the time.

That's kinda what happens when certain people don't engage with the substance of an argument but just keep parroting the same things over and over again. Which is what you and a select few others keep doing.

Studies on the lethality of tasers versus other weapons, quotes from the Georgia supreme court, quotes from the Atlanta PDs own use of force guidelines, quotes from the accused's attorney; all conveniently ignored. But someone did bring up the fact that his mother in law was fired; which is of course supremely relevant to the discussions which have been happening here.

If you prefer to talk ad-nauseum about how awful Leo is or how SF were cheated out of government there are plenty of other threads and fora for that; some of us don't find that kind of thing interesting.

lawrencesummers

It’s entirely possible that Rolfe should never have been there in the first place, while people are happy to talk about Brooks previous crimes then don’t ignore the history that Rolfe has.


The lack of investigation into a questionable previous shooting involving him is strange and looks like a serious incident that was Brushed under the carpet.

If you want to open up brooks file then open up the officers as well.

Green Peter

Overheal wrote: »

For the 4th time ITT: Halwell v State,



The DA is well in their bounds to choose when and how to exercise that elected prosecutorial authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_b78GSBUs

There are plenty of DAs coming to notice in the US over their overzealous prosecutions in the not to distant past. Have a look at the innocence files on Netflix and see how they build cases to suit their own views and what they deem to be public opinion. The police are now the bad guys and where political careers can be built or destroyed. It's amazing how deadly force is not deadly force when it suits the DA and your learnered self.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s entirely possible that Rolfe should never have been there in the first place, while people are happy to talk about Brooks previous crimes then don’t ignore the history that Rolfe has.


The lack of investigation into a questionable previous shooting involving him is strange and looks like a serious incident that was Brushed under the carpet.

If you want to open up brooks file then open up the officers as well.

Amazing

So a CONVICTED felon shouldnt be tainted by his PROVEN CRIMES unless we also taint the cop with his EXONERATED allegations?

Nope, doesnt work that way, one was proven guilty of a serious crime, the other was exonerated of a complaint. Innocent until proven guilty so if you want to start finding people guilty of actions then lets just throw in what Brooks was going to do had he escaped for good measure

lawrencesummers

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Amazing

So a CONVICTED felon shouldnt be tainted by his PROVEN CRIMES unless we also taint the cop with his EXONERATED allegations?

Nope, doesnt work that way, one was proven guilty of a serious crime, the other was exonerated of a complaint. Innocent until proven guilty so if you want to start finding people guilty of actions then lets just throw in what Brooks was going to do had he escaped for good measure

Nothing amazing about it. The incident should be judged on its own merit, yet people are willing to bring Brooks history into it, without bringing the officers into it.

I dont think Either are relevant to the shooting, but if your going to examine one then examine both because it looks like neither party was up for a knighthood