Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.
Options
Comments
-
lawrencesummers wrote: »
A justified kick to a Grounded suspected offender that has sustained 3 gun shots.
Say that out loud to yourself.
Why has no video of the kick been released? All I have seen is a pretty blurry picture which seems odd considering how everything else leading up to the shooting has made its way into the public domain.
Considering the Mayor and DA have kinda jumped the gun on this case, not going the grand jury route which is normal is cases like this and is pushing for charges that don't seem like they will stick if this does go to court it just seem odd to me this event has been left out.0 -
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 cop worth his salt will have complaints. It's the ones that don't I'd be concerned about. Scum have as much the right to complain as decent people. In Ireland back in the day the provos had a policy of making complaints immediately against polis who took them on. It was a means to stall or delay the investigation / prosecution process and intimidate good active officers. Criminal gangs often do the same. 12 complaints in 7 years is nothing if you are doing your job.0 -
Why has no video of the kick been released? All I have seen is a pretty blurry picture which seems odd considering how everything else leading up to the shooting has made its way into the public domain.
Considering the Mayor and DA have kinda jumped the gun on this case, not going the grand jury route which is normal is cases like this and is pushing for charges that don't seem like they will stick if this does go to court it just seem odd to me this event has been left out.
The video they showed the still from looks like it came from the mobile phone of one of the witnesses. If it does show an obvious kick I'm not sure why they wouldn't release it since clearly this was always going to be something that would be pounced on.
They also didn't show any body-cam footage of the actual shooting. I know one of the body-cams was knocked/fell off; not sure why they wouldn't show the footage from the other also.
I think in the context of the protests and George Floyd case they probably felt they had to be proactive to try and minimise any perceived bias in favour of the police; and thus prevent significant civil unrest in their city.
As to the Grand Jury comment I'm not sure what you expect to happen here... do you think if someone is caught on camera committing a murder they are not arrested and charged until a Grand Jury indicts? Not saying that I necessarily consider this case to be murder but clearly that's the accusation.
In terms of the timing I think I would have preferred the DA to hold fire on the charges until getting at least the Georgia Bureau of Investigation report; but again maybe the acceleration was in the "public's interest" in the DA's mind.0 -
The video they showed the still from looks like it came from the mobile phone of one of the witnesses. If it does show an obvious kick I'm not sure why they wouldn't release it since clearly this was always going to be something that would be pounced on.
My mistake regarding it being official footage getting released but some footage I saw has the field sobriety test being carried out and the moments prior to Brooks attacking the cops which looked like it was from the dash cam from the cop car.I think in the context of the protests and George Floyd case they probably felt they had to be proactive to try and minimise any perceived bias in favour of the police; and thus prevent significant civil unrest in their city.
I get that but by firing the guy right away and jumping the gun on prosecuting the officers, won't that just result in a huge payout if the cops are found to not have broken the law and sue the state?As to the Grand Jury comment I'm not sure what you expect to happen here... do you think if someone is caught on camera committing a murder they are not arrested and charged until a Grand Jury indicts? Not saying that I necessarily consider this case to be murder but clearly that's the accusation.
This is not even close to a standard murder case. When its police officers, the usual time frame is a GBI lead investigation with the DA to see if a crime has been committed and then a grand jury to decide if it should go to trial.In terms of the timing I think I would have preferred the DA to hold fire on the charges until getting at least the Georgia Bureau of Investigation report; but again maybe the acceleration was in the "public's interest" in the DA's mind.
The DA himself is under investigation by the GBI for a missing $140k of tax's payers money, fighting a really tough re-election campaign and all while under the spotlight of a sexual harassment complaint. When the guy leading the prosecution has so many skeletons bursting out of the closet, having video evidence instead of a blurry picture of said kick is kinda needed.0 -
I get that but by firing the guy right away and jumping the gun on prosecuting the officers, won't that just result in a huge payout if the cops are found to not have broken the law and sue the state?
This is not even close to a standard murder case. When its police officers, the usual time frame is a GBI lead investigation with the DA to see if a crime has been committed and then a grand jury to decide if it should go to trial.
I doubt they were worried about being sued; I can't imagine the liability would be even a small fraction of the cost of significant civil unrest such as occurred in other cities. Assuming he would even have legal grounds to sue and assuming that was their rationale.
In addition you have to realise that a not insignificant portion of the protests are in relation to how police officers are treated w.r.t. the law; and the numerous advantages they have when compared to the average Joe:- Police officers do not generally have to go through the legal system when they're accused of any wrongdoing.
- A significant number of accusations are handled internally by the police officer's department directly; not some independent body and not the general public.
- In general even when charges are considered or brought forward; the Grand Jury tends to not go ahead with prosecution and displays bias in favour of police officers.
- In Georgia in particular; police officers have special rights when it comes to Grand Jury proceedings. They are allowed to craft (with the help of lawyers, unions etc.) a sworn statement which they are allowed to read directly to the members of the Grand Jury. This is something that NO OTHER CITIZEN is entitled to.
- Police officers also have no personal liability for damage caused while performing their duties (qualified immunity); so even in cases where their actions might not rise to the level of criminal culpability there is less incentive for them to hold back when using force. So even should someone try to go down the civil path to try and hold officer's accountable for their actions; large cities can and do soak this up without issue.
So I can see what the DA might prefer to bring charges before going to the Grand Jury; because in effect the deck is stacked in favour of the officer when the "normal" sequence of events is allowed to play out.
However I feel like even if this was his intention that he should have waited for the GBI report to ensure he has as many of the facts of the case as is possible.The DA himself is under investigation by the GBI for a missing $140k of tax's payers money, fighting a really tough re-election campaign and all while under the spotlight of a sexual harassment complaint. When the guy leading the prosecution has so many skeletons bursting out of the closet, having video evidence instead of a blurry picture of said kick is kinda needed.
I don't disagree on releasing the video; I would much prefer transparency here. In terms of the whole District Attorney being a political position thing I also dislike that aspect of the USA justice system; but none of that means that this case has zero merit and that there is no argument to be made that there is something to answer for here.0 -
Advertisement
-
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:
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.
It's cops that arrest corrupt cops. It's cops that arrest off duty cops.
People seem to think that police officers will actively protect corrupt colleagues. In reality, they hate them. The danger is if it becomes so common as to be considered acceptable but I would be shocked if that's the case in Atlanta
Ultimately, you cannot demand fair treatment of suspects while damning the police based on complaints alone.
That's a very very odd equality.0 -
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/
It says nothing. Allegations aren't proof of guilt.
"If allegations is enough to prove guilt, what of the innocent?" - Caeser.
You need to try and be open minded and non biased in this. You can't just decide he's guilty because you don't like his occupation but then cry foul when people make allegations against Brooks.
Otherwise all we have is the witch hunts all over again so please, decide. Do you support blind Justice and the presumption of innocence or kangaroo courts?0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »It's cops that arrest corrupt cops. It's cops that arrest off duty cops.
People seem to think that police officers will actively protect corrupt colleagues. In reality, they hate them. The danger is if it becomes so common as to be considered acceptable but I would be shocked if that's the case in Atlanta
Ultimately, you cannot demand fair treatment of suspects while damning the police based on complaints alone.
That's a very very odd equality.
I don't even think that obvious corruption or illegality is necessarily what worries people. Certainly not the majority of people who would generally support the police at least; I can't really speak for those who seem to have a more long-standing issue with policing.
My personal concerns would be around things like:- Policies and guidelines being written by officers, reviewed by officers, and with very little input from the wider legal apparatus of the city and state unless and until an incident so egregious it causes widespread outrage (George Floyd incident for example) occurs.
- The fact that officers are the only ones to judge the appropriateness of any officer's conduct (again barring those incidents which spark significant public outcry) behind closed doors.
- The ability for officers to be fired or leave another department due to excessive use of force or other questionable behaviour and just stroll into a job in another department with seeming impunity.
Now apart from the last point about officers who jump around departments I'm not even saying that these actually DO result in serious issues with policy or discipline; but perception and accountability are key here.
In particular when you have large sections of society who for one reason or another do not trust the police; saying to them "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" just isn't going to cut it.
And when you have people like me who in general admire and trust the police it's very difficult to understand why there is no independent disciplinary oversight and why police officers are given special treatment within the justice system if they are so above reproach.0 -
Green Peter wrote: »Any cop worth his salt will have complaints. It's the ones that don't I'd be concerned about. Scum have as much the right to complain as decent people. In Ireland back in the day the provos had a policy of making complaints immediately against polis who took them on. It was a means to stall or delay the investigation / prosecution process and intimidate good active officers. Criminal gangs often do the same. 12 complaints in 7 years is nothing if you are doing your job.
So without knowing the details of any of his complaints you are happy to dismiss them all because of something the IRA did, and you take a complaint as being something that cops should be seeking.
That’s an interesting approach you have.
Tell me if complaints are good then are awards from the department for his work bad?0 -
lawrencesummers wrote: »So without knowing the details of any of his complaints you are happy to dismiss them all because of something the IRA did, and you take a complaint as being something that cops should be seeking.
That’s an interesting approach you have.
Tell me if complaints are good then are awards from the department for his work bad?
No awards are not but given they way you apply logic I can see how you got there.0 -
Advertisement
-
Niner leprauchan wrote: »It says nothing. Allegations aren't proof of guilt.
"If allegations is enough to prove guilt, what of the innocent?" - Caeser.
You need to try and be open minded and non biased in this. You can't just decide he's guilty because you don't like his occupation but then cry foul when people make allegations against Brooks.
Otherwise all we have is the witch hunts all over again so please, decide. Do you support blind Justice and the presumption of innocence or kangaroo courts?
Ive been saying since the start that firing that cop was wrong, he deserves to be given the opportunity to defend his actions and having his future employment dependent on the outcome of that. The way that he has been fired is totally wrong, he should be suspended pending investigations. Due process and all that.
If he is found not guilty of whatever charges are brought against him by the justice system and the internal police procedure then he should be entitled to keep his job.
I just don’t think he will be able to prove his shooting as being justified, but he should have been given the opportunity.0 -
Green Peter wrote: »No awards are not but given they way you apply logic I can see how you got there.
Any cop worth his salt will have complaints.
That’s what you said. If your willing to say that then the opposite must be the case. Complaints good, commendations bad.0 -
lawrencesummers wrote: »Any cop worth his salt will have complaints.
That’s what you said. If your willing to say that then the opposite must be the case. Complaints good, commendations bad.
Life isn't always that simple0 -
Green Peter wrote: »Life isn't always that simple
A line that you Should apply to your own rationale.0 -
-
Been looking at this on and off and am interested in seeing what the outcome is but its clear that people can have different interpretations of the same laws even before you try bringing morals into it which isn’t easy living in a different landscape.
The part I’m struggling with is the DA’s consistency since the taser was considered a deadly weapon in early June and not here. Maybe I have missed the details but I feel like the case has already lost credibility due to Howard’s haste and even involvement to a degree. Again a completely different environment than here with politics and media as it is at the moment.0 -
lawrencesummers wrote: »Any cop worth his salt will have complaints.
That’s what you said. If your willing to say that then the opposite must be the case. Complaints good, commendations bad.
Again, an award is given AFTER proven the actions merit an award.
A complaint is not equal. If you are trying to do that then a 'recomendation' is equal.
Not all complaints are upheld, not all recommendations result in awards.
The reality is that police get complaints. Look at covid19. Hundreds of people with nothing better to do went to gsoc and complained that Gardai weren't wearing facemasks. By your rational, complaints stick but the Gardai in all those complaints had done nothing wrong and were guilty of nothing other than following instructions from their superiors.
You cannot keep finding people guilty based on allegations.0 -
I don't even think that obvious corruption or illegality is necessarily what worries people. Certainly not the majority of people who would generally support the police at least; I can't really speak for those who seem to have a more long-standing issue with policing.
My personal concerns would be around things like:- Policies and guidelines being written by officers, reviewed by officers, and with very little input from the wider legal apparatus of the city and state unless and until an incident so egregious it causes widespread outrage (George Floyd incident for example) occurs.
- The fact that officers are the only ones to judge the appropriateness of any officer's conduct (again barring those incidents which spark significant public outcry) behind closed doors.
- The ability for officers to be fired or leave another department due to excessive use of force or other questionable behaviour and just stroll into a job in another department with seeming impunity.
Now apart from the last point about officers who jump around departments I'm not even saying that these actually DO result in serious issues with policy or discipline; but perception and accountability are key here.
In particular when you have large sections of society who for one reason or another do not trust the police; saying to them "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" just isn't going to cut it.
And when you have people like me who in general admire and trust the police it's very difficult to understand why there is no independent disciplinary oversight and why police officers are given special treatment within the justice system if they are so above reproach.
You seem to be hung up on certain aspects here. Incorrectly in my opinion.
First up is the fact that cops investigate cops. Will, that's their jobs, they are the best men for it.
Likewise in deciding policy. Who decides policy in your company? Police departments decide policy inside legal requirements. So do banks, offices, builders, etc.
Two, that the department decides guilt. Well no, that's not true. If it's a criminal allegation, the da will decide just like any other criminal case. In Ireland it will be the dpp.
The department can only decide if it's a discipline issue only and that's in every organisation the world over. Let's be clear, if you are accused of breaching internal rules in your company, it will be the bosses deciding, not Gardai. Is that not so?
In regards leaving for other jobs, again only if no Criminal charges are filed. I have been sacked in my life, it didn't prevent me applying for the same job elsewhere.
Personal liability. Actually in Ireland all private companies are required to cover their staff. If I fall in McDonald's, I sue McDonald's not the cleaner. It's the same in the us.
Special treatment in the legal profession. How so? Do judges not find then guilty and issue sentences? Yes they do. Sure sometimes the sentence is weak but that's hardly only when Gardai are concerned.
So when you call for equal treatment, you aren't. You are actually calling for special treatment of police.0 -
The part I’m struggling with is the DA’s consistency since the taser was considered a deadly weapon in early June and not here. Maybe I have missed the details but I feel like the case has already lost credibility due to Howard’s haste and even involvement to a degree. Again a completely different environment than here with politics and media as it is at the moment.
As has been stated numerous times in this thread:
My understanding is that in Georgia the jury will be asked to deliver the following verdict when a case of aggravated assault is presented:- Not Guilty of Assault or Aggravated Assault.
- Guilty of Simple Assault (as we deem the weapon involved not to be deadly).
- Guilty of Aggravated Assault (as we deem the weapon involved deadly).
0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »First up is the fact that cops investigate cops. Will, that's their jobs, they are the best men for it.
Absolutely. But not cops from the department which is accused of wrongdoing and have a vested interest in finding against their own colleagues. Whether that happens or not is not even the issue in my mind; it is whether you can demonstrate it does not happen to those who you're supposed to be serving.
In addition the act of investigation is different to the act of adjudicating over an investigation; there's a reason the police are not judge and jury.
Companies do not hold any legal power to enforce the rule of law using lethal force; I don't think this is a reasonable comparison. A more accurate comparison might be to semi-state bodies; but in case you hadn't noticed they are in the vast majority of cases heavily regulated by various independent bodies on top of the regular rule of law.Likewise in deciding policy. Who decides policy in your company? Police departments decide policy inside legal requirements. So do banks, offices, builders, etc.
Again my point here is more about perception and accountability; as opposed to making any judgement about their capability to set policy in an area they are naturally the experts.Two, that the department decides guilt. Well no, that's not true. If it's a criminal allegation, the da will decide just like any other criminal case. In Ireland it will be the dpp.
The department can only decide if it's a discipline issue only and that's in every organisation the world over. Let's be clear, if you are accused of breaching internal rules in your company, it will be the bosses deciding, not Gardai. Is that not so?
The Department gets to decide what information if any is sent to the District Attorney for any given case.
The nature of the work of a police department is such that the vast majority of disciplinary issues are also issues of law; not issues of private company policy.
If I'm assaulted and physically injured during an arrest by an officer and file a complaint to the department; it's up to the department whether or not that file gets sent to the District Attorney. There is zero independent oversight or accountability there. Again; there's a reason the phrase "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" is used a lot.
I'm sure you have personal feelings about the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission but there's no doubt in my mind that the perception around the Gardai has changed much for the better since they've been operating. That's the kind of thing I would like to see in Atlanta.In regards leaving for other jobs, again only if no Criminal charges are filed. I have been sacked in my life, it didn't prevent me applying for the same job elsewhere.
I don't see the equivalence here. Police officers are professionals with significant power in our society and should be regulated as such.
If you're a doctor and you face disciplinary proceedings sufficient to warrant your removal from the doctor's register; you can't just leave your existing job and stroll into another hospital a few towns over and get a job. It's not possible.
In addition we're not talking about being fired for being late for four days in a row; we're talking about potentially being fired for excessive use of force which involved someone's serious injury or death. There's no differentiation if you're a police officer in many parts of the USA.Personal liability. Actually in Ireland all private companies are required to cover their staff. If I fall in McDonald's, I sue McDonald's not the cleaner. It's the same in the us.
Firstly we're not talking about Ireland here; and let me be clear that none of the opinions and judgements I'm making in this thread are in reference to the Gardai (unless I specifically mention it). I'm basing this discussion around Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
And again we're not talking about incompetence; we're talking about behaviour which would in any other context be treated as a criminal or civil matter with liability squarely on the shoulders of the person involved.Special treatment in the legal profession. How so? Do judges not find then guilty and issue sentences? Yes they do. Sure sometimes the sentence is weak but that's hardly only when Gardai are concerned.
As stated a number of times; in Goergia in particular police officers are allowed craft a statement to be delivered in person to the Grand Jury. No other citizen is afforded that right.
And that's assuming charges are ever filed to begin with.So when you call for equal treatment, you aren't. You are actually calling for special treatment of police.
Police already get special treatment; and I'm not even suggesting things should change all that much. I would like to see an independent disciplinary body to deal with issues that would normally be handled legally; not matters which would normally be handled by a company's own internal policies.0 -
Advertisement
-
Absolutely. But not cops from the department which is accused of wrongdoing and have a vested interest in finding against their own colleagues. Whether that happens or not is not even the issue in my mind; it is whether you can demonstrate it does not happen to those who you're supposed to be serving.
In addition the act of investigation is different to the act of adjudicating over an investigation; there's a reason the police are not judge and jury.
Companies do not hold any legal power to enforce the rule of law using lethal force; I don't think this is a reasonable comparison. A more accurate comparison might be to semi-state bodies; but in case you hadn't noticed they are in the vast majority of cases heavily regulated by various independent bodies on top of the regular rule of law.
Again my point here is more about perception and accountability; as opposed to making any judgement about their capability to set policy in an area they are naturally the experts.
The Department gets to decide what information if any is sent to the District Attorney for any given case.
The nature of the work of a police department is such that the vast majority of disciplinary issues are also issues of law; not issues of private company policy.
If I'm assaulted and physically injured during an arrest by an officer and file a complaint to the department; it's up to the department whether or not that file gets sent to the District Attorney. There is zero independent oversight or accountability there. Again; there's a reason the phrase "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" is used a lot.
I'm sure you have personal feelings about the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission but there's no doubt in my mind that the perception around the Gardai has changed much for the better since they've been operating. That's the kind of thing I would like to see in Atlanta.
I don't see the equivalence here. Police officers are professionals with significant power in our society and should be regulated as such.
If you're a doctor and you face disciplinary proceedings sufficient to warrant your removal from the doctor's register; you can't just leave your existing job and stroll into another hospital a few towns over and get a job. It's not possible.
In addition we're not talking about being fired for being late for four days in a row; we're talking about potentially being fired for excessive use of force which involved someone's serious injury or death. There's no differentiation if you're a police officer in many parts of the USA.
Firstly we're not talking about Ireland here; and let me be clear that none of the opinions and judgements I'm making in this thread are in reference to the Gardai (unless I specifically mention it). I'm basing this discussion around Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
And again we're not talking about incompetence; we're talking about behaviour which would in any other context be treated as a criminal or civil matter with liability squarely on the shoulders of the person involved.
As stated a number of times; in Goergia in particular police officers are allowed craft a statement to be delivered in person to the Grand Jury. No other citizen is afforded that right.
And that's assuming charges are ever filed to begin with.
Police already get special treatment; and I'm not even suggesting things should change all that much. I would like to see an independent disciplinary body to deal with issues that would normally be handled legally; not matters which would normally be handled by a company's own internal policies.
I'm insure where to go here. You seem unwilling to separate legal and internal.
Your company is responsible for your actions in civil law. It's your company that will be sued if you screw up, not you. Unless you can give a specific example of how you would personally be subject to civil liability, I can't respond. Crimes liability applies equally across the board.
Your example of a doctor again shows the confusion here. The doctor being stuck off is losing his license to practice. That exists in the us for police as well but it's not just a case of 'being fired'. Doctors aren't stuck off for internal breaches of hospital regulations. They are stuck off as a result of serious professional misconduct or negligence. The police equivalent would probable result in Criminal charges. Fyi it's solicitors / lawyers that decided negligence by solicitors and it's doctors that sit on the boards of inquiry against doctors. Again because they are the best people for the job. Gsoc, run by a journalist with zero knowledge or ability in law or criminal investigations is not a good example. Would the head of your company be a random person with no previous experience?
Again I can just repeat myself, either you want special treatment it you don't.
On the one hand you want police to be supervised, monitored and subjected to scrutiny above anyone else but then dislike that they are given special treatment. It can but should not be both.
You asked about gsoc and yes I have an opinion on them. Do a Google search regarding criminak charges against Gardai. You will find the vast majority are from Garda investigations, not gsoc ones. Also, gsoc are not independent and neutral. For starters if an off duty Garda is involved in a fight and both sides make an allegation against the other, gsoc will investigate however can only investigate the Garda. They have no powers to investigate assaults committed by non Gardai. When you can only investigate one party, you aren't neutral. Which brings us back to the decision regarding equality.0 -
There's no denying this is a bizzare and tragic incident but I've been taken aback at the extraordinary rush of ambulance chasing lawyers that take over the narrative in these stories. Call me a cynic but I see one major focus after the fact and that compensation.
An intriguing development over the weekend is Brooks alleged and white girlfriend having arrest warrant issued for 1st degree arson. Interesting she wasn't invited to speak at the impromptu news conference with the grieving wife.
Before the do gooders jump on my observation, I reiterate I completely agree there is rampant racism in the USA (I lived in Baltimore for 3 years and saw it first hand) but this shooting is not about racism, any objective person looking at the video prior to shooting can see this. It's about a perfectly acceptable police interaction went pear shaped and one police offers complete disregard for the law.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
lawrencesummers wrote: »
A justified kick to a Grounded suspected offender that has sustained 3 gun shots.
Say that out loud to yourself.
Not that it makes much difference but Brooks was shot 2 times, not 3 times.
Secondly, have you ever seen someone who was shot? It's not like the movies. They don't always drop down dead instantly. There are many videos where people have been shot multiple times and have been able to get up and run a short distance, continue fighting etc.
All this is conjecture but Brooks was armed with a taser and if he had the capability of moving, then (even though he was fatally wounded) he may have had the capability of firing it at the cop. The cop may have been making sure that Brooks couldn't shoot the taser at him.
Like I said, the above is a possibility, I'm not claiming it to be a fact.
My thinking is that if the shooting was justified, then the kick may be justified to.
Now if Brooks is on the ground dying, clearly incapacitated and no threat, (say a minute after being shot), in that case the kick would be unjustified. But we don't know the circumstances so it may or may not have been justified.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »I have been sacked in my life, it didn't prevent me applying for the same job elsewhere.
Never mind Brooks. What did you get sacked for?
:D:D 0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »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?
What relevance does that have to do with anything?
0 -
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.
And thats exactly the problem in the US today. That shouldnt be an automatic death sentence, otherwise you are basically saying any mentally challenged person who gets in an altercation with the cops is dead, also you better not be drunk or high and god forbid you have psychological issues.
"Protect and Serve" indeed.0 -
What relevance does that have to do with anything?
I'm paraphrasing here but a statement was made that no cop has the right to take a life.
I asked that question to counter what the poster said because I'm saying this isn't correct as there may be occasions where a cop has to take a life to protect their life or someone else's life.0 -
And thats exactly the problem in the US today. That shouldnt be an automatic death sentence, otherwise you are basically saying any mentally challenged person who gets in an altercation with the cops is dead, also you better not be drunk or high and god forbid you have psychological issues.
"Protect and Serve" indeed.
You do realise that a mentally challenged person, or a drunk or high person who gets in an altercation with a cop can actually kill the cop. We had a recent example of it here in Ireland very recently.
Cops deal with mentally ill, drunk and high people every single day and very very few of them result in the deaths of the mentally ill, drunk or high person. Brooks wasn't shot for being drunk, high or being mentally ill. Brooks endangered the lives of two cops by resisting arrest, assaulting both of them, stealing a police issue taser and shooting the taser at the cops.
The bit in bold is why he was shot.
Whether that shooting was justified, that remains to be seen.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Not that it makes much difference but Brooks was shot 2 times, not 3 times.
Secondly, have you ever seen someone who was shot? It's not like the movies. They don't always drop down dead instantly. There are many videos where people have been shot multiple times and have been able to get up and run a short distance, continue fighting etc.
All this is conjecture but Brooks was armed with a taser and if he had the capability of moving, then (even though he was fatally wounded) he may have had the capability of firing it at the cop. The cop may have been making sure that Brooks couldn't shoot the taser at him.
Like I said, the above is a possibility, I'm not claiming it to be a fact.
My thinking is that if the shooting was justified, then the kick may be justified to.
Now if Brooks is on the ground dying, clearly incapacitated and no threat, (say a minute after being shot), in that case the kick would be unjustified. But we don't know the circumstances so it may or may not have been justified.
Didnt he already turn and fire the taser, isnt that why he was shot, twice, in the back?
So we have an unarmed man, down on the ground who has been shot twice.
Better give him a kick, just in case?
For me the kick only goes to reinforce the idea that the cops were acting in anger and not in control of themselves. A situation we have seen over and over again in the US, especially in relation to the current peaceful protests.0 -
Advertisement
-
Didnt he already turn and fire the taser, isnt that why he was shot, twice, in the back?
So we have an unarmed man, down on the ground who has been shot twice.
Better give him a kick, just in case?
For me the kick only goes to reinforce the idea that the cops were acting in anger and not in control of themselves. A situation we have seen over and over again in the US, especially in relation to the current peaceful protests.
Brooks wasn't unarmed. He had the stolen police taser that he had just shot at the cops with. By the way, just in case you don't know, the Fulton County DA was prosecuting different cops for using a deadly weapon (taser) on students just two weeks before the Brooks shooting.
If he still had the capability of using the taser on the cops, then yes, the kick may have been justified. As far as I'm aware the taser had the capability of being used again.
My thinking is that if the shooting was justified, then maybe so was the kick. It all depends on the circumstances and neither you or me can be 100% sure as the video hasn't been released.
Now if the cop kicked Brooks a minute after he was shot, then throw the book at the cop. There's no argument that can be made for something like that. But we'll have to wait for the video or the court case to find out if that's the case.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement