Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Mic 1972 · 20-06-2020 11:38am

Stop looking for excuses for this Brook guy, defending crime is not what BLM movement is about.
That guy was an idiot to act like that, not a chance he was gonna get out of that situation by running away and stealing a taser, a complete waste

lawrencesummers · 20-06-2020 12:51pm

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Stop looking for excuses for this Brook guy, defending crime is not what BLM movement is about.
That guy was an idiot to act like that, not a chance he was gonna get out of that situation by running away and stealing a taser, a complete waste

Who is defending brooks?

I haven’t seen anyone on here defending him, just people who don’t think he deserved to be shot to death.

KiKi III · 20-06-2020 12:57pm

mynamejeff wrote: »

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

He didn’t shoot himself?

20-06-2020 1:28pm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

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

ok so we shall bring in the past

One was a convicted felon. Convicted for child abuse who was on parole at the time of the incident having driven to the drive tru and then fell asleep at the wheel resulting in members of the public calling the police.

The other was a police officer with years of service and zero convictions or disciplinary findings against his name. He was at the scene because he was working and responding to a request for assistance from the public.

They interacted with each other and when the police officer attempted to arrest the convicted felon, the felon resisted. During the struggle the felon took posession of a police issue weapon and attempted to flee. While fleeing and being pursued by the police officer, the convicted felon turned and fire a police issue tasor that he had just stolen, at the police officer. In reply to this the police officer fired from his police issue sidearm at the convicted felon. 2 bullets hit the felon and 1 bullet hit a nearby car. the felon died and the police officer was dismissed from his job.

Thats their history. Thats their entire history as it relates to this thread.

Having read that entire history, I believe the police officers action while sad, were justified. I believe that the police officer has a duty to apprehend armed suspects and protect innocent bystanders. I believe he was doing so. I believe the convicted felon was desperate to escape and was willing to injure or even kill the police officer and possible others to do so. I believe that the outcome we have is better than many of the alternatives and that the only more preferable outcome was taken off the table by the convicted criminal himself.

I also believe that justice should be seen to be done in these cases which includes ALL the unedited evidence being put forward and witnesses given direct testimony. I do not believe that it should or is served by trial by media snippets.

joe40 · 20-06-2020 1:32pm

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

The convicted felon in this case was the victim of the crime (alleged crime if that sits better) either way his past is irrelevant.
The shooting was either unlawful or not, the victims past is totally irrelevant.
There is no evidence the police knew who he was so they were treating him as they would any citizen.

You can support the cops in this instance if you wish, I get that, but there is no way the victims past is pertinent here.
It might help some people's sense of Karma but in terms of legalities totally irrelevant.

20-06-2020 2:03pm

joe40 wrote: »

The convicted felon in this case was the victim of the crime (alleged crime if that sits better) either way his past is irrelevant.
The shooting was either unlawful or not, the victims past is totally irrelevant.
There is no evidence the police knew who he was so they were treating him as they would any citizen.

You can support the cops in this instance if you wish, I get that, but there is no way the victims past is pertinent here.
It might help some people's sense of Karma but in terms of legalities totally irrelevant.

Its not completely irelevent. I agree that it normally is but the fact that he was convicted of a violent crime and was currently on parole is hugely important in gauging mentality and actions of Brooks. It explains why he tried to resist to such an extent and also plays into the argument that he should have been allowed flee and simple arrested tomorrow.

It will play a supporting role in the trial but naturally wont be a deciding factor in itself to decide if a crime has actually been commited. I works me amazed if the defence don't use it.

Also, see the post below in regards why I mentioned it.

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:17pm

Green Peter wrote: »

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.

Deadly force is what the jury determines. As I said. Explicitly. In the post you quoted. Citing Georgia jurisprudence.

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:18pm

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

“Exonerated” is the word his department used on his disciplinary record. It doesn’t prove exoneration. They weren’t judicial determinations.

20-06-2020 2:25pm

Overheal wrote: »

“Exonerated” is the word his department used on his disciplinary record. It doesn’t prove exoneration. They weren’t judicial determinations.

Correct as they weren't criminal charges. They were discipline and he was exonerated. Courts don't use the term.

Keep dancing the lobsided shuffle if you must but it's pretty obvious at this stage

20-06-2020 2:30pm

Overheal wrote: »

Deadly force is what the jury determines. As I said. Explicitly. In the post you quoted. Citing Georgia jurisprudence.

Eh no, it's force that result's in death. Jury wont be asked to clarify anything about it.

They will be asked the question about justifiable homicide.

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:33pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Correct as they weren't criminal charges. They were discipline and he was exonerated. Courts don't use the term.

Keep dancing the lobsided shuffle if you must but it's pretty obvious at this stage

Oh yes, I’m sure the same officers who walked off the job in a disgusting display of silence and blue flu took a fair and impartial, even dare I say critical and objective look at Rolfe’s conduct and found exonerating evidence in his defense :rolleyes:

20-06-2020 2:35pm

Overheal wrote: »

Oh yes, I’m sure the same officers who walked off the job in a disgusting display of silence and blue flu took a fair and impartial look at Rolfe’s conduct and found exonerating evidence in his defense :rolleyes:

Ah you just keep on dancing.

You don't need evidence of innocence, you need evidence of guilt.

You also don't know that any cops from internal affairs walked off not shall I be dragged into that with you as it's not relevant and just another cop bashing action by yourself

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:36pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ah you just keep on dancing.

You don't need evidence of innocence, you need evidence of guilt.

You also don't know that any cops from internal affairs walked off.

Do you understand what exoneration even is?

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:38pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Eh no, it's force that result's in death. Jury wont be asked to clarify anything about it.

They will be asked the question about justifiable homicide.

Yes, they will. It is jurisprudence, which I have cited for you and has been cited at least 4 times in this thread. Under Georgia jurisprudence it is the jury that determines whether a weapon is considered deadly or not, as it pertains to the case on hand.

20-06-2020 2:38pm

Overheal wrote: »

Do you understand what exoneration even is?

Yep. When there's no evidence of wrong doing, you are exonerated.

Do you understand the difference between criminal cases and discipline?

Do you understand how the us and Irish legal systems operate and the primary presumption they are built upon?

I shall assume as you can only pick small parts of my comments, that you have no actual argument against the main body

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:41pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yep. When there's no evidence of wrong doing, you are exonerated.

Do you understand the difference between criminal cases and discipline?

Do you understand how the us and Irish legal systems operate and the primary presumption they are built upon?

I shall assume as you can only pick small parts of my comments, that you have no actual argument against the main body

The main body of your posts are ridiculous and founded on the bits I typically bold which are ridiculous assumptions by you, and that’s being nice about it.

Exoneration means proof has been found of innocence. A failure to find evidence of conviction is acquittal. Since the APD can scribble whatever they want on his disciplinary record, and they’ve clearly got a broken “blue flu” culture I’m amazed you trust the integrity of those determinations on his record.

20-06-2020 2:48pm

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, they will. It is jurisprudence, which I have cited for you and has been cited at least 4 times in this thread. Under Georgia jurisprudence it is the jury that determines whether a weapon is considered deadly or not, as it pertains to the case on hand.

No, it's not. The definition doesn't change case by case. One it's been established by case law, it stands. Once the courts have established that a tasor qualifies, it qualifies. The jury duty get to ignore it change that definition.

They are there to decide one aspect of the case and that's it. Of course they can ignore the evidence and facts given. They can even ignore judicial direction but they aren't in theory supposed to.

A jury cannot be asked if a firearm (for example) is a deadly weapon when the courts have already found it to be so with prejudice.

The jury can only decide if there is a reasonable belief that the police officer believed he faced deadly force at the time.

They won't be asked to define if a tasor can be a deadly weapon or capable of being used in deadly force. That's what case law and expert testimony is for. You give them too much power.

20-06-2020 2:52pm

Overheal wrote: »

The main body of your posts are ridiculous and founded on the bits I typically bold which are ridiculous assumptions by you, and that’s being nice about it.

Exoneration means proof has been found of innocence. A failure to find evidence of conviction is acquittal. Since the APD can scribble whatever they want on his disciplinary record, and they’ve clearly got a broken “blue flu” culture I’m amazed you trust the integrity of those determinations on his record.

Jesus wept.
Come back when you can separate criminal trials from disciplinary actions.

And when you are capable of leaving your anti cop bias at the door.

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:55pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Jesus wept.
Come back when you can separate criminal trials from disciplinary actions.

And when you are capable of leaving your anti cop bias at the door.

Of course I am separating trial from discipline. That’s what I’m telling you: his blue flu brethren are the ones responsible for populating his disciplinary record. His “exonerations,” therefore, are meaningless.

Overheal · 20-06-2020 2:59pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, it's not. The definition doesn't change case by case. One it's been established by case law, it stands. Once the courts have established that a tasor qualifies, it qualifies. The jury duty get to ignore it change that definition.

They are there to decide one aspect of the case and that's it. Of course they can ignore the evidence and facts given. They can even ignore judicial direction but they aren't in theory supposed to.

A jury cannot be asked if a firearm (for example) is a deadly weapon when the courts have already found it to be so with prejudice.

The jury can only decide if there is a reasonable belief that the police officer believed he faced deadly force at the time.

They won't be asked to define if a tasor can be a deadly weapon or capable of being used in deadly force. That's what case law and expert testimony is for. You give them too much power.

I didn’t give them that power the State Supreme Court did in Harwell v. State, 512 S.E.2d 892 (Ga. Sup. Ct. 1999)

“ Whether a weapon is deadly or one likely to cause serious bodily injury is a question for the jury, which may consider all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used. Williams v. State, 127 Ga.App. 386(1), 193 S.E.2d 633 (1972). See also Arnett v. State, 245 Ga. 470(3), 265 S.E.2d 771 (1980). Cf. Smith v. Hardrick, 266 Ga. 54(2), 464 S.E.2d 198 (1995)”

20-06-2020 4:05pm

Just heard about this. What a clear cut simple way to get yourself justifiably killed.

If an officer uses a taser, it's non-lethal. If a citizen steals a cop's taser, it can be rightly assumed to be step 1 towards getting the cop's gun, which is lethal force.

Not a single person in this thread would wait for that to happen or give the benefit of doubt after a guy fights against an arrest, steals a taser, and fires it an officer. If you attack armed cops, you're going all or nothing. In America, it can be assumed that either you die or they die in that situation, a situation entirely created by the dead guy.

punisher5112 · 20-06-2020 4:54pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just heard about this. What a clear cut simple way to get yourself justifiably killed.

If an officer uses a taser, it's non-lethal. If a citizen steals a cop's taser, it can be rightly assumed to be step 1 towards getting the cop's gun, which is lethal force.

Not a single person in this thread would wait for that to happen or give the benefit of doubt after a guy fights against an arrest, steals a taser, and fires it an officer. If you attack armed cops, you're going all or nothing. In America, it can be assumed that either you die or they die in that situation, a situation entirely created by the dead guy.

Unfortunately keyboard warrior type don't see this.

It's been going around on itself now days, I'm no longer discussing it as I've made my point and I stick to it.

The officers were friendly and professional throughout, they weren't prepared for him to lash out but hey that's the danger.

lawrencesummers · 20-06-2020 6:50pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

ok so we shall bring in the past

One was a convicted felon. Convicted for child abuse who was on parole at the time of the incident having driven to the drive tru and then fell asleep at the wheel resulting in members of the public calling the police.

The other was a police officer with years of service and zero convictions or disciplinary findings against his name. He was at the scene because he was working and responding to a request for assistance from the public.

They interacted with each other and when the police officer attempted to arrest the convicted felon, the felon resisted. During the struggle the felon took posession of a police issue weapon and attempted to flee. While fleeing and being pursued by the police officer, the convicted felon turned and fire a police issue tasor that he had just stolen, at the police officer. In reply to this the police officer fired from his police issue sidearm at the convicted felon. 2 bullets hit the felon and 1 bullet hit a nearby car. the felon died and the police officer was dismissed from his job.

Thats their history. Thats their entire history as it relates to this thread.

Having read that entire history, I believe the police officers action while sad, were justified. I believe that the police officer has a duty to apprehend armed suspects and protect innocent bystanders. I believe he was doing so. I believe the convicted felon was desperate to escape and was willing to injure or even kill the police officer and possible others to do so. I believe that the outcome we have is better than many of the alternatives and that the only more preferable outcome was taken off the table by the convicted criminal himself.

I also believe that justice should be seen to be done in these cases which includes ALL the unedited evidence being put forward and witnesses given direct testimony. I do not believe that it should or is served by trial by media snippets.

That’s not the officers history.
That’s what the blue wall of silence has put in his record.
He has a very questionable past.

12 complaints in 7 years.
Says a lot.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/16/ex-cop-garrett-rolfe-who-killed-rayshard-brooks-had-12-citizen-complaints/

lawrencesummers · 20-06-2020 6:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Just heard about this. What a clear cut simple way to get yourself justifiably killed.

If an officer uses a taser, it's non-lethal. If a citizen steals a cop's taser, it can be rightly assumed to be step 1 towards getting the cop's gun, which is lethal force.

Not a single person in this thread would wait for that to happen or give the benefit of doubt after a guy fights against an arrest, steals a taser, and fires it an officer. If you attack armed cops, you're going all or nothing. In America, it can be assumed that either you die or they die in that situation, a situation entirely created by the dead guy.

I see you omitted the part about him running away and being shot in the back. Twice.
And then being kicked.

AbusesToilets · 20-06-2020 7:36pm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s not the officers history.
That’s what the blue wall of silence has put in his record.
He has a very questionable past.

12 complaints in 7 years.
Says a lot.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/16/ex-cop-garrett-rolfe-who-killed-rayshard-brooks-had-12-citizen-complaints/

Any actual discipline against him based on them? Or are they nuisance complaints acrued in a job where you consistently meet people on their worst days?

Overheal · 20-06-2020 8:10pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Any actual discipline against him based on them? Or are they nuisance complaints acrued in a job where you consistently meet people on their worst days?

He’s had reprimands but no serious action was given to any of it. I can see why chief shields resigned right away.

OMM 0000 · 20-06-2020 8:16pm

So, he's been arrested for murder for two reasons:

1. Appease the mob, temporarily.

2. He cannot be convicted of murder. (What he did is legal in Georgia, and obviously it's not murder - arguably manslaughter, but not murder).

So he will get exonerated, and the mob will go crazy.

The divide and conquer race baiting is sick.

BattleCorp · 20-06-2020 9:20pm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I see you omitted the part about him running away and being shot in the back. Twice.
And then being kicked.

The shooting might turn out to be justified.
The kick might turn out to be justified.

I suspect both will turn out to be justified.

lawrencesummers · 20-06-2020 9:43pm

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

BattleCorp wrote: »

The shooting might turn out to be justified.
The kick might turn out to be justified.

I suspect both will turn out to be justified.

A justified kick to a Grounded suspected offender that has sustained 3 gun shots.

Say that out loud to yourself.

ronivek · 20-06-2020 10:00pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Any actual discipline against him based on them? Or are they nuisance complaints acrued in a job where you consistently meet people on their worst days?

I think the whole point here is that it shouldn't be up to his own department and his actual colleagues (all of whom tend to be members of the same union) to determine the validity of these complaints.

It's also not clear what happened to the allegations he was involved with other members of his department to cover-up the shooting of another fleeing suspect in 2015. The following is a quote from Judge Doris L Downs, during a 2016 court hearing on the matter:

None of the police put in the report that they shot the man – none of them. And they sent him to Grady [Memorial Hospital] with collapsed lungs and everything, and the report doesn’t mention it.

Now maybe there's some reasonable explanation for that but I'm struggling to think of one; you don't just conveniently forget that you shot at and wounded a suspect who required subsequent hospitalisation.

Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Comments