Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

punisher5112

Look what happened in reading.....


The cops wanted home that night and as I said not in a bag.

lawrencesummers

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.

The officer fired three times, the autopsy says he died from two gunshot wounds to the back. What happened the other round? Could he actually have missed him from so close?

EDIT: the other round apparently hit someone else’s car. So not only is this a questionable shooting at best, but the officer put others in the line of fire in the parking lot of a family restaurant in his attempts to kill a fleeing suspect. Not only is the shooting unnecessary it’s also clearly now irresponsible.

Out of interest What excuse have you got for them putting on gloves and picking up the bullet casings before they called for medical assistance?

lawrencesummers

punisher5112 wrote: »

Look what happened in reading.....


The cops wanted home that night and as I said not in a bag.

Let’s look at what happened in Reading.
A deadly weapon was used.
The offender wasn’t running away.
The victims were unarmed and untrained.

Danzy

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Let’s look at what happened in Reading.
A deadly weapon was used.
The offender wasn’t running away.
The victims were unarmed and untrained.

Yes, a resounding success.

ronivek

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

As has been stated many times; the "deadly weapon" aspect is decided by the jury and not the District Attorney. It is also decided based on the merits of the individual case and all its associated circumstances.

A member of the accused officer's legal team, Noah Pines, has explicitly stated the following:

Rolfe “heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him, and so he did what any officer in that situation would do. He dropped his taser, pulled his gun, and fired it at Mr. Brooks.”

Now to me that statement heavily implies that the officer believed a gun had been fired at him; that in fact whether or not a taser constitutes a deadly weapon was not the actual justification for him shooting.

As has also been stated in this thread: even the Atlanta PDs policies do not consider a taser to be a "deadly" or "lethal" weapon consistent with how it would be defined in law.

So it's very likely the justification here is "I believed he had fired a gun"; and not that he believed he had fired a taser. Whether you believe that justification or not is another question.

ronivek

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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.

We're getting a bit off track here so I'll try to briefly address your points and move on.

If I'm a store employee and I assault a customer I will be held both criminally liable and be open to civil liability w.r.t. damages. This can vary between jurisdictions but it is my understanding this is generally the case in the USA.

If I'm a police officer in Atlanta and I assault a suspect it is questionable whether the District Attorney's Office will ever even see a file on the incident; let alone proceed with a case. I also cannot be held liable in any civil case.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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?

Medical Boards although populated primarily by doctors also contain "laypeople" and consumers of the service including legal experts. They also tend to be appointed by government and absolutely do not represent a single hospital or trust only. In Georgia they are senate and governor appointed.

The State Bar of Georgia is much the same; and both allow you to verify the standing of individuals and also in many cases to view information about their disciplinary record.

This is quite different to Atlanta PD which handles all of its own complaints and whose only public accountability appears to be a yearly report with sanitised statistics. Likewise many law enforcement agencies in the USA operate similarly.

EDIT: As to your point about officers being fired; it has very often been the case that officers have been fired and criminal cases have *not* been filed precisely because they are police officers. The firing was deemed to be punishment enough. Then they move to another town/state and join the local department. In addition the judgement of such boards can be wide ranging and can include censure, suspensions, warning, informal mediation etc. The key is that as a professional there are certain ethical and professional standards which must be demonstrated consistently in order for someone to be considered fit to practice; I feel that the police should be held to similar standards over the course of their entire career. Wouldn't you like to see that? Surely weeding out the few bad officers would be beneficial to the profession at large?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Again I can just repeat myself, either you want special treatment it you don't.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I've stated that I would like to see some independent body to oversee complaints against police officers and potentially act as a professional body similarly to how the medical and legal professions are handled.

As to "special treatment" I haven't really made a judgement either way; simply stated that as it stands police officers do appear to get preferential treatment even when legal proceedings occur.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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.

I do not doubt anything you've said here; but nothing you've said makes me believe that GSOC doesn't serve a useful purpose in many cases. Also I'm not even saying a body precisely like GSOC would be the ideal; I was simply giving an example we're both somewhat familiar with that performs a similar function.

BattleCorp

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The officer fired three times, the autopsy says he died from two gunshot wounds to the back. What happened the other round? Could he actually have missed him from so close?

A few things here. Firstly, if Brooks was so close, he could be considered to pose a threat to the cops. If he was so close, he could have shot them with the taser. Both of these things add to the argument that the use of deadly force was justified.

Secondly, cops miss quite regularly. The link below makes scary reading. Between 1998 and 2006, the NY PD hit rate in gunfights was 18%. Where fire wasn't returned, the hit rate was 30%. Apparently they miss more times than they hit the target.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=wfce17af_z8C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=new+york+police+department+hit+rate&source=bl&ots=D1zxqwW6Of&sig=ACfU3U3vLEjdYgZwITL6aVuufB_bdGCiuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit5vLv2JfqAhUBTRUIHUecDBgQ6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20police%20department%20hit%20rate&f=false

EDIT: the other round apparently hit someone else’s car. So not only is this a questionable shooting at best, but the officer put others in the line of fire in the parking lot of a family restaurant in his attempts to kill a fleeing suspect. Not only is the shooting unnecessary it’s also clearly now irresponsible.

Yes, it could be argued that it was irresponsible but it can also be argued that it wasn't (if the shooting was justified). The police are allowed to defend themselves if their life is in danger. How often do you think they get to evaluate their surroundings before deciding to shoot back? They have a split second to react or else it could be curtains for them. And yes I am aware that the stray shot could have had tragic consequences.

Out of interest What excuse have you got for them putting on gloves and picking up the bullet casings before they called for medical assistance?

No idea on that one to be honest. The one area I would be critical of the cops in the Brooks incident would be that they didn't immediately call for medical help. That doesn't mean that I don't think the shooting wasn't justified though.

BattleCorp

ronivek wrote: »

As has been stated many times; the "deadly weapon" aspect is decided by the jury and not the District Attorney. It is also decided based on the merits of the individual case and all its associated circumstances.

I'm fine with this.

Now to me that statement heavily implies that the officer believed a gun had been fired at him; that in fact whether or not a taser constitutes a deadly weapon was not the actual justification for him shooting.

So, given that statement, the cop had reason to believe that a gun had been fired at him. Isn't that justification for the shooting?

As has also been stated in this thread: even the Atlanta PDs policies do not consider a taser to be a "deadly" or "lethal" weapon consistent with how it would be defined in law.

Going by your first statement in this reply, what the Atlanta PD think of the taser is irrelevant, it's the jury that decides that.

So it's very likely the justification here is "I believed he had fired a gun"; and not that he believed he had fired a taser. Whether you believe that justification or not is another question.

Taser or gun, both have the potential to cause harm so I guess the jury will decide on that, if it gets that far.

expectationlost

will the cops claim the taser is deadly weapon?

lawrencesummers

BattleCorp wrote: »

A few things here. Firstly, if Brooks was so close, he could be considered to pose a threat to the cops. If he was so close, he could have shot them with the taser. Both of these things add to the argument that the use of deadly force was justified.

Secondly, cops miss quite regularly. The link below makes scary reading. Between 1998 and 2006, the NY PD hit rate in gunfights was 18%. Where fire wasn't returned, the hit rate was 30%. Apparently they miss more times than they hit the target.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=wfce17af_z8C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=new+york+police+department+hit+rate&source=bl&ots=D1zxqwW6Of&sig=ACfU3U3vLEjdYgZwITL6aVuufB_bdGCiuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit5vLv2JfqAhUBTRUIHUecDBgQ6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20police%20department%20hit%20rate&f=false



Yes, it could be argued that it was irresponsible but it can also be argued that it wasn't (if the shooting was justified). The police are allowed to defend themselves if their life is in danger. How often do you think they get to evaluate their surroundings before deciding to shoot back? They have a split second to react or else it could be curtains for them. And yes I am aware that the stray shot could have had tragic consequences.



No idea on that one to be honest. The one area I would be critical of the cops in the Brooks incident would be that they didn't immediately call for medical help. That doesn't mean that I don't think the shooting wasn't justified though.

Proximity is only one aspect, direction of movement is as much a factor. A person with a weapon that needs to be used at close range is Less of a danger if they are moving away than they are if they are moving toward, as he was moving away it removes the justification for lethal force, even if he was advancing with only a taser it might not justify lethal force.

Your contention that officers have only a split second to evaluate their surroundings is irrelevant in this scenario as they knew the suspect, they had been in the car park for long enough to know it was a busy family area, they had searched him, knew he wasn’t armed and they knew it was a Taser that he had.

The officers best defense here might be to put forward the absurd lie that he mistook the taser for being the other officers handgun when he decided to fire. It’s horse**** but it’s the kind of horse**** that could work in only a place like merika.

BattleCorp

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Proximity is only one aspect, direction of movement is as much a factor. A person with a weapon that needs to be used at close range is Less of a danger if they are moving away than they are if they are moving toward, as he was moving away it removes the justification for lethal force, even if he was advancing with only a taser it might not justify lethal force.

Brooks stole the taser. Moved a short distance away, turned and fired at the cops. He then moved a short distance away. The cops didn't give him the opportunity to turn and fire the taser at them a second time.

I'm not saying 100% that their actions were justified, it just looks like their actions were justified to me. I'm happy for the jury (if it gets that far) to decide on that. I'm saying that the fact that Brooks shot the taser at the cops and had the capability to do so again are grounds to argue that the actions were justified unlike you who is rejecting the justification argument out of hand.

Your contention that officers have only a split second to evaluate their surroundings is irrelevant in this scenario as they knew the suspect, they had been in the car park for long enough to know it was a busy family area, they had searched him, knew he wasn’t armed and they knew it was a Taser that he had.

They weren't expecting Brooks to resist arrest, assault them, steal the taser and shoot it at one of them. If they were expecting Brooks to unload a can of whoopass on them, they would have had their guns drawn much earlier in the proceedings.

Here's a question for you. If you are armed and I'm shooting at you, would you just stand there and say I can't shoot back because there are people around? Ya would aye.

The officers best defense here might be to put forward the absurd lie that he mistook the taser for being the other officers handgun when he decided to fire. It’s horse**** but it’s the kind of horse**** that could work in only a place like merika.

Who knows. He might say that. But I think the taser argument to be strong enough though as grounds for the actions he took. We disagree on that but time will (may) tell.

lawrencesummers

You will do anything to not have to use the words “ he was running away”. The words that best describe what he was doing when he was shot in the back.

The shot in the back is important also, because it means the taser had missed, and Brooks was fleeing, that he had another round or twenty more rounds in the taser is irrelevant because the Cop could keep a safe distance away from then on.

It’s the very same as throwing a knife at a cop and missing, you have to enter the realm of possibility to justify shooting somebody after that.

punisher5112

expectationlost wrote: »

will the cops claim the taser is deadly weapon?

Less lethal but deadly in the wrong hands....

mynamejeff

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You will do anything to not have to use the words “ he was running away”. The words that best describe what he was doing when he was shot in the back.

The shot in the back is important also, because it means the taser had missed, and Brooks was fleeing, that he had another round or twenty more rounds in the taser is irrelevant because the Cop could keep a safe distance away from then on.

It’s the very same as throwing a knife at a cop and missing, you have to enter the realm of possibility to justify shooting somebody after that.

you wont be happy till killing cops is legal will you ?


anything but accepting responsibility for his actions

lawrencesummers

mynamejeff wrote: »

you wont be happy till killing cops is legal will you ?


anything but accepting responsibility for his actions

I’m pretty sure no cop was killed in this entire incident so take your nonsense elsewhere, or better again apply your “accepting responsibility for his actions” line to the professionally trained and qualified people who are being discussed here instead of being one sided and applying it only to one party.

BattleCorp

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You will do anything to not have to use the words “ he was running away”. The words that best describe what he was doing when he was shot in the back.

I'm not denying that Brooks was running away. He was also running away when he stopped and fired the taser at the cops a second or two earlier. Just because he had momentarily turned and ran doesn't mean that he was no longer a threat. How far was he away from the cop when he was shot? I'm guessing less than 15 feet. I'm a fat ****er and it doesn't take me long to cover 15 feet and it takes a taser a fraction of a second to travel 15 feet. He was certainly close enough to pose a threat to the cop if the turned and fired again.

The shot in the back is important also, because it means the taser had missed, and Brooks was fleeing, that he had another round or twenty more rounds in the taser is irrelevant because the Cop could keep a safe distance away from then on.

Lucky for the cop that the taser missed.

It’s the very same as throwing a knife at a cop and missing, you have to enter the realm of possibility to justify shooting somebody after that.

I would expect a cop to be allowed to defend himself if someone threw a knife at him and had another knife in their possession (Brooks had fired the taser and had the capability of using it again on the cop).

BattleCorp

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I’m pretty sure no cop was killed in this entire incident so take your nonsense elsewhere, or better again apply your “accepting responsibility for his actions” line to the professionally trained and qualified people who are being discussed here instead of being one sided and applying it only to one party.

You are being fairly one-sided there yourself boss.

Brooks was the author of his own misfortune. He over-reacted to being arrested because he knew he was going back to jail for breaching the terms of his parole.

At no stage during the 40 minute discussions before the shooting did the cops do anything to provoke fear in Brooks.

He acted irrationally and assaulted the cops, shot the taser at them and endangered their lives.

I get your point that cops are trained but it's hard to train for being punched in the head and shot at (with a taser or gun or other such weapon). Cops have a poxy dangerous job to do in the States and unfortunately they sometimes need to use deadly force to protect their lives or the lives of others. Take that away from them and you'll have no cops in the US. Why would they put their lives on the line when they will be crucified for trying to defend themselves when push comes to shove?

The shot in the back is important also, because it means the taser had missed, and Brooks was fleeing, that he had another round or twenty more rounds in the taser is irrelevant because the Cop could keep a safe distance away from then on.

So, given your logic, I can go around shooting tasers at cops and they can't do anything to me because they are able to stay out of range of the taser. Is that what you are saying? Really?

I Am Nobody

Some posters for Brooks seem to not grasp the ideal of intent.When Brooks fired the taser at the officer,he intended to disable them.Once he did that,he set the scenario for his own fate.In GA,a taser is classed as a deadly weapon.when you fire a deadly weapon at an officer,expect to also meet a deadly weapon response.

Normally during a officer's shift they take in account fellow officer safety and public safety. Brooks had shown disregard for both of those and only his own agenda.I seriously cant understand why that concept is beyond some of the posters.

mynamejeff

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I’m pretty sure no cop was killed in this entire incident so take your nonsense elsewhere, or better again apply your “accepting responsibility for his actions” line to the professionally trained and qualified people who are being discussed here instead of being one sided and applying it only to one party.

cops are regularly shot at and or killed in America because they don't want to seem over aggressive especially towards African Americans . those stats are very clear.
your agenda is clear that a violent criminal who attacked police while drunk driving should have been allowed to flee with a stolen police weapon

also you have no idea of my professional qualifications but I can assure you they extend to this situation.

the evidence is very clear its your choice to ignore it given the political context in the US at present

lawrencesummers

I Am Nobody wrote: »

Some posters for Brooks seem to not grasp the ideal of intent.When Brooks fired the taser at the officer,he intended to disable them.Once he did that,he set the scenario for his own fate.In GA,a taser is classed as a deadly weapon.when you fire a deadly weapon at an officer,expect to also meet a deadly weapon response.

Normally during a officer's shift they take in account fellow officer safety and public safety. Brooks had shown disregard for both of those and only his own agenda.I seriously cant understand why that concept is beyond some of the posters.

Some posters don’t seem to grasp the concept of singularity.
There were two cops.
He fired and missed when he shot the taser at one of them.
Anything after that is hypothetical except for the fact that one officer drew his weapon and fired. The other didn’t which shows a difference in analysis of the situation.

Mic 1972

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=688639725263351

If this is what BLM movement is about, then they have no support from me

White woman politely inviting the guy not to write BLM on the wall of an expensive private property. The guy - who turns out to be the owner of the house - becoming confrontational and bullying the woman.

lawrencesummers

mynamejeff wrote: »

cops are regularly shot at and or killed in America because they don't want to seem over aggressive especially towards African Americans . those stats are very clear.
your agenda is clear that a violent criminal who attacked police while drunk driving should have been allowed to flee with a stolen police weapon

also you have no idea of my professional qualifications but I can assure you they extend to this situation.

the evidence is very clear its your choice to ignore it given the political context in the US at present

What happens elsewhere in other situations is irrelevant.
Your qualifications are also irrelevant.
The political context is irrelevant.
Your incorrect assumption of my agenda is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is the incident where A man was shot while running away from police firing a taser and the legal system will decide if the officer was in immediate life threatening danger or not.

It’s my belief he was not.
It’s my belief that the officer would still be alive today, unharmed, if he hadn’t shot the fleeing suspect.

I Am Nobody

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Some posters don’t seem to grasp the concept of singularity.
There were two cops.
He fired and missed when he shot the taser at one of them.
Anything after that is hypothetical except for the fact that one officer drew his weapon and fired. The other didn’t which shows a difference in analysis of the situation.

See it then comes down to intent.Brooks intent was to disable or harm the officers.while he was fleeing,seriously how hard is that to comprehend?Brooks set himself up for his own end.

And it is very easy for some posters to armchair delegate while not knowing the risks and dangers officers face on a daily basis.So armchair away!

mynamejeff

lawrencesummers wrote: »

What happens elsewhere in other situations is irrelevant.
Your qualifications are also irrelevant.
The political context is irrelevant.
Your incorrect assumption of my agenda is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is the incident where A man was shot while running away from police firing a taser and the legal system will decide if the officer was in immediate life threatening danger or not.

It’s my belief he was not.
It’s my belief that the officer would still be alive today, unharmed, if he hadn’t shot the fleeing suspect.

posters here were saying brookes fought and ran because he was afraid the cops would kill him due to the political situation in America ,

why do you think he attacked the cops stole the weapon and ran ?


funny enough your beliefs are irrelevant too

BattleCorp

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The shot in the back is important also, because it means the taser had missed, and Brooks was fleeing, that he had another round or twenty more rounds in the taser is irrelevant because the Cop could keep a safe distance away from then on.

[BattleCorp]
So, given your logic, I can go around shooting tasers at cops and they can't do anything to me because they are able to stay out of range of the taser. Is that what you are saying? Really?

I'm still waiting for your answer on my query above.

thefa

Mic 1972 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=688639725263351

If this is what BLM movement is about, then they have no support from me

White woman politely inviting the guy not to write BLM on the wall of an expensive private property. The guy - who turns out to be the owner of the house - becoming confrontational and bullying the woman.

In fairness, I don’t think that guy represents a movement but you will always get those types who seek offence. The simple thing to do would have been to let her know that it was his house straight away but the default was to be a victim of profiling. It is in a good portion of people’s nature I feel to look out for others and stenciling on a wall is quite unusual. That said, a part of that video says the woman told him she knew who lives there so she’s not without fault.

lawrencesummers

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm still waiting for your answer on my query above.

It was and still is so ridiculous that i ignored it.

lawrencesummers

mynamejeff wrote: »

posters here were saying brookes fought and ran because he was afraid the cops would kill him due to the political situation in America ,

why do you think he attacked the cops stole the weapon and ran ?


funny enough your beliefs are irrelevant too

So your quoting me and then attributing something To me which I never said.

I dont know why he attacked the cops, plenty of people speculated on that, I didn’t.

The only thing I commented on are the facts of the incident.i don’t think the Cop should have been fired, and I don’t think it was necessary for him to shoots Brooks.

lawrencesummers

I Am Nobody wrote: »

See it then comes down to intent.Brooks intent was to disable or harm the officers.while he was fleeing,seriously how hard is that to comprehend?Brooks set himself up for his own end.

And it is very easy for some posters to armchair delegate while not knowing the risks and dangers officers face on a daily basis.So armchair away!

The risks and dangers officers face on a daily basis is irrelevant.

The only risk that is relevant is the risk in that particular incident, and if that risk justifies a fatal shooting. I don’t think it does.

Mic 1972

thefa wrote: »

In fairness, I don’t think that guy represents a movement but you will always get those types who seek offence. The simple thing to do would have been to let her know that it was his house straight away but the default was to be a victim of profiling. It is in a good portion of people’s nature I feel to look out for others and stenciling on a wall is quite unusual. That said, a part of that video says the woman told him she knew who lives there so she’s not without fault.

The woman said she knew who lives there the same way as you would tell a child because she was dealing with an immature adult. For him to write on a wall and then saying "call the police if you want" speaks volume about the thin skinned personality of these so-called protesters.

The black community has nothing to gain from this, if anything BLM is going to turn people racists who normally wouldn't be