Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

punisher5112

To be honest this has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland and people should be discussing issues such as suicide, murders here on the island, carers that are stuck with zero help and many not even paid carer allowance as the husband or wife or whatever is over by€50 or €100.

So many bigger issues here to discuss.

This has ran it's course and the sad part is now the lgbtqnvxhfs are jumping on it and painting statues and just doing the stupidest of things.

Welfare fraud is also something and illegal migrants especially those economic ones that are coming in illegally.

Mic 1972

punisher5112 wrote: »

To be honest this has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland and people should be discussing issues such as suicide, murders here on the island, carers that are stuck with zero help and many not even paid carer allowance as the husband or wife or whatever is over by€50 or €100.

So many bigger issues here to discuss.

This has ran it's course and the sad part is now the lgbtqnvxhfs are jumping on it and painting statues and just doing the stupidest of things.

Welfare fraud is also something and illegal migrants especially those economic ones that are coming in illegally.

BLM has run its course??? chances are it's going to pick up here too

punisher5112

Mic 1972 wrote: »

BLM has run its course??? chances are it's going to pick up here too

Absolutely nuts, we had absolutely no hand nor part in slavery or oppression of black people....

We should be doing ilm.... Irish lives matter....

Overheal

punisher5112 wrote: »

Absolutely nuts, we had absolutely no hand nor part in slavery or oppression of black people....

We should be doing ilm.... Irish lives matter....

Oh I wouldn’t be so sure

https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/the-irish-and-the-atlantic-slave-trade/

Besides, Industrial Light and Magic would have a fit.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

Oh I wouldn’t be so sure

https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/the-irish-and-the-atlantic-slave-trade/

Besides, Industrial Light and Magic would have a fit.

1500-1700, the Republic of Ireland did not exist.

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

1500-1700, the Republic of Ireland did not exist.

So the new constitution just washed your hands of it how convenient!

Let’s not sidestep the involvement of the Irish people in the slave trade.

Happyilylost

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.

I Am Nobody wrote:

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!

In my opinion the police officers had justification to shoot Brooks in the struggle when his hands were close to a lethal weapon. I'm not getting into the whole is a taser a lethal weapon or not. If it is they should of shot him then and there but I can only imagine in that moment they did not feel it to be a threat.

In regards to the ending. Police officer says now (or so we're told) he thought it was a firearm. I feel he would of been better saying he felt a major threat from the taser. They patted him down. Doing their job correctly they should of known he was not armed with a firearm. Being poor at your job is not an excuse.

As regard to Brooks looking to change tact and attack the officer after hitting him with a taser I don't see it. He shot the taser. And continued to run. For at least a few steps before being shot.

Enough of it doesn't add up to be a justified shooting. Although I don't think it's cut and dry either way.

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

So the new constitution just washed your hands of it how convenient!

Let’s not sidestep the involvement of the Irish people in the slave trade.

Lol.

I'm never sure if you are serious or not.

If you are, :eek:

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

Lol.

I'm never sure if you are serious or not.

If you are, :eek:

Problem? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/links-to-slave-trade-evident-across-ireland-1.4276650

ronivek

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm fine with this.
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?

You could argue that; yes.

You could also argue that any reasonably competent officer would:

1. Take note of the fact he has been patted down and thus unless he takes an officer's weapon should not have a gun.
2. Take note of the fact his partner has stated "he took my ****ing taser".
3. Take note of the fact the fleeing suspect has said taser in this hand; a taser being a bright yellow firearm with a light emitting from the front of it.
4. Take note of the fact the fleeing suspect raised said bright yellow taser with front light towards the officer.
5. Differentiate between the pop of a taser firing and the crack of a gun.

I'm not necessarily making any judgements here; simply stating I believe there's an argument to be made and a discussion to be had.

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

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

Well what Atlanta PD think about the taser is relevant to many of the discussions which have taken place here w.r.t. the taser being a deadly weapon.

It is also relevant to whether or not the officer followed in both the letter and spirit of his own use of force guidelines or not; and also any discussions about what the "ideal" behaviour should be if this scenario were to play out again in the future.

Manic Moran

I will observe, again, that the rules on the use of deadly force do not require that the opposition have a deadly weapon, but the possibility of serious injury will suffice. In common parlance, "fear of life, limb or eyesight".

Police tasers are usually fired from a controlled position. What is the barb of a taser going to do if it lands in your eye? What will it do if it lands in your eye and then discharges however many thousand volts? Brooks obviously was not taking the time to aim.

ronivek

Manic Moran wrote: »

I will observe, again, that the rules on the use of deadly force do not require that the opposition have a deadly weapon, but the possibility of serious injury will suffice. In common parlance, "fear of life, limb or eyesight".

Yes; and interestingly enough there are a few apparent contradictions from Atlanta PDs Standard Operating Procedures:

APD.SOP.3040 5.2: CEW/Taser: A less lethal device that uses electrical current to override an individual’s central nervous system for a brief time.

APD.SOP.3010 5.3: Lethal weapon: a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious physical injury or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use can cause death or serious physical injury.

APD.SOP.3010 5.4: Less lethal weapon: any weapon or instrument used as a weapon that is not manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious physical injury.

So the key then would be the part about "can cause death or serious physical injury"; which could be argued could include just about any device or object on the planet.

Police tasers are usually fired from a controlled position. What is the barb of a taser going to do if it lands in your eye? What will it do if it lands in your eye and then discharges however many thousand volts? Brooks obviously was not taking the time to aim.

Indeed and a fairly recent study demonstrated taser field-use risk of penetrating eye injury of approximately 1 in 123,000; of which 18 out of 28 cases resulted in blindness or removal of the impacted eye. [1]

So would the math here lead you to something like: it's okay to shoot 123,000 people to prevent a single police officer potentially being blinded in one eye?

[1]: Kroll MW, Ritter MB, Kennedy EA, et al. Eye injuries from electrical weapon probes: Incidents, prevalence, and legal implications. J Forensic Leg Med. 2018;55:52-57. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2018.02.013

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

So the new constitution just washed your hands of it how convenient!

Let’s not sidestep the involvement of the Irish people in the slave trade.

Pretty much everybody everywhere was involved in the slave trade if you want to go back far enough.

BattleCorp

ronivek wrote: »

Indeed and a fairly recent study demonstrated taser field-use risk of penetrating eye injury of approximately 1 in 123,000; of which 18 out of 28 cases resulted in blindness or removal of the impacted eye.

So would the math here lead you to something like: it's okay to shoot 123,000 people to prevent a single police officer potentially being blinded in one eye?

[1]: Kroll MW, Ritter MB, Kennedy EA, et al. Eye injuries from electrical weapon probes: Incidents, prevalence, and legal implications. J Forensic Leg Med. 2018;55:52-57. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2018.02.013

The cop in the Brooks incident doesn't have to think of the 122,999 other cases, he just has to think of protecting his own eye.

The study says "The use of electrical weapons presents a rare but real risk of total or partial unilateral blindness from electrical weapon probes. Catastrophic eye injuries appear to be the dominant non-fatal complication of electronic control.". The study you quote also says that tasers can call burn injuries and other injuries from uncontrolled falls.

Is the taser as lethal as a gun, no.........but I think it's hard to argue that the taser didn't have the potential to do physical harm to the cop.

Just one other point on the field-study. Was it cops or drunk people trying to flee an arrest firing the tasers? I think that's relevant to the numbers in the study as you would think that cops shooting a taser would be less likely to shoot someone in the eye (as they would have better aim) than a drunken criminal running and aiming wildly.

Danzy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Pretty much everybody everywhere was involved in the slave trade if you want to go back far enough.

It's sort of a self flaggellation, pure narcissism

When I think of Ireland and slave trade, I think of the Barbary slave trade, where Irish people were taken in raids and sold in Africa, not the transatlantic one.

Happyilylost

Manic Moran wrote: »

I will observe, again, that the rules on the use of deadly force do not require that the opposition have a deadly weapon, but the possibility of serious injury will suffice. In common parlance, "fear of life, limb or eyesight".

Police tasers are usually fired from a controlled position. What is the barb of a taser going to do if it lands in your eye? What will it do if it lands in your eye and then discharges however many thousand volts? Brooks obviously was not taking the time to aim.

This point of "what if" keeps coming up. Brooks had fired the taser. The police officer reacted to the event. He did not shoot Brooks as he was about to pull the taser. So again. He shot. He missed. He ran. He got shot. If the police officer shot him as he was drawing the taser the argument of getting hit in the eye or being tased and having his firearm removed would of been relevant. But it seems the shot Brooks took missed and that particular shot posed no threat to the pursuing officer.

BattleCorp

Happyilylost wrote: »

This point of "what if" keeps coming up. Brooks had fired the taser. The police officer reacted to the event. He did not shoot Brooks as he was about to pull the taser. So again. He shot. He missed. He ran. He got shot. If the police officer shot him as he was drawing the taser the argument of getting hit in the eye or being tased and having his firearm removed would of been relevant. But it seems the shot Brooks took missed and that particular shot posed no threat to the pursuing officer.

The taser wasn't a single use taser so Brooks could have fired it at the cops again if he so desired.

Of course the shot Brooks took at the cops posed a threat to the cops. The fact that it missed (luckily for the cop) means that it didn't harm the cops (because it missed), not that it didn't pose a threat.

Happyilylost

BattleCorp wrote: »

The taser wasn't a single use taser so Brooks could have fired it at the cops again if he so desired.

Of course the shot Brooks took at the cops posed a threat to the cops. The fact that it missed (luckily for the cop) means that it didn't harm the cops (because it missed), not that it didn't pose a threat.

I'm not trying to play semantics but again once the the taser had been fired that particular shot was no longer a threat as it had missed. If Brooks looked like he was turning around again then maybe that would give a stronger argument for shooting the deceased.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

So the new constitution just washed your hands of it how convenient!

Let’s not sidestep the involvement of the Irish people in the slave trade.

New constitution? Not a big Irish history fan?

Hmmm, where did the slave trade begin?? Should Africa be paying reparations??

Danzy

Happyilylost wrote: »

I'm not trying to play semantics but again once the the taser had been fired that particular shot was no longer a threat as it had missed. If Brooks looked like he was turning around again then maybe that would give a stronger argument for shooting the deceased.

Where to begin with this?

BattleCorp

Happyilylost wrote: »

I'm not trying to play semantics but again once the the taser had been fired that particular shot was no longer a threat as it had missed. If Brooks looked like he was turning around again then maybe that would give a stronger argument for shooting the deceased.

I'm not trying to be rude but you don't seem to understand what the word threat means.

The barb and electrical charge of the taser posed a threat (could cause harm) to the safety of the cops. The fact that it missed is immaterial. It could just have easily hit the cop and caused them physical harm therefore the shot (even though it missed) was a threat.

Brooks still had the taser so he still was a threat to the cops. Now whether or not he intended to shoot at the cops again we'll never know.

Galwayguy35

Overheal wrote: »

Oh I wouldn’t be so sure

https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/the-irish-and-the-atlantic-slave-trade/

Besides, Industrial Light and Magic would have a fit.

So because a handful of Irish born men were involved in it overseas you think that means we as a country were in the slave trade?

Spain, Portugal, Britain and America were the countries who were most involved in it.

Ireland has no history of enslaving people and those holding the BLM marches here are second generation African Irish who's parents came knocking on Irelands door looking to get in.

Danzy

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So because a handful of Irish born men were involved in it overseas you think that means we as a country were in the slave trade?

Spain, Portugal, Britain and America were the countries who were most involved in it.

Ireland has no history of enslaving people and those holding the BLM marches here are second generation African Irish who's parents came knocking on Irelands door looking to get in.

Don't you dare deny young rich kids from here an opportunity to take part in this just because they are Irish.

yourdeadwright

I see there was a person shot at the vigil for Rayshard last night,

Seen the video online a gun fight started in the and a (white or Hispanic) women standing beside a guy video recording it got hit,

Seems there was bullets going every where in a large crowd, One black guys just standing there watching it with an AR 15 ,

America has lost the plot ,

Danzy

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I see there was a person shot at the vigil for Rayshard last night,

Seen the video online a gun fight started in the and a (white or Hispanic) women standing beside a guy video recording it got hit,

Seems there was bullets going every where in a large crowd, One black guys just standing there watching it with an AR 15 ,

America has lost the plot ,

That video is fro. A shooting there a few days ago.

Different shootings, think it is the 3rd one now this week.

Happyilylost

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not trying to be rude but you don't seem to understand what the word threat means.

The barb and electrical charge of the taser posed a threat (could cause harm) to the safety of the cops. The fact that it missed is immaterial. It could just have easily hit the cop and caused them physical harm therefore the shot (even though it missed) was a threat.

Brooks still had the taser so he still was a threat to the cops. Now whether or not he intended to shoot at the cops again we'll never know.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlanta-police-force-policy-violated-multiple-times-fatal/story?id=71295429

The threat had passed.

I'm only going by the information provided. It has been stated by several sources that the taser had been fired twice and could not be used again. This is akin to an officer shooting a suspect who has an AK47 but the officer is in full knowledge the gun has no bullets.

In my opinion the Police Officer is going down the route of saying he believes a firearm was fired at him because he knows the taser was no longer capable of causing harm.

Danzy

Happyilylost wrote: »

https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlanta-police-force-policy-violated-multiple-times-fatal/story?id=71295429

The threat had passed.

I'm only going by the information provided. It has been stated by several sources that the taser had been fired twice and could not be used again. This is akin to an officer shooting a suspect who has an AK47 but the officer is in full knowledge the gun has no bullets.

In my opinion the Police Officer is going down the route of saying he believes a firearm was fired at him because he knows the taser was no longer capable of causing harm.

When you draw and point a weapon it doesn't matter what is known, you have to expect the police to not just accept it, maybe they'll die or not.

He was trained to drop and take out the armed attacker and he did. Split second decision.

yourdeadwright

If we where in America and the police pulled us over and before they came to us I said,
"if they arrest me i'm going to attack them steal the Taser shoot at them and try run away "

You would immediately think that it could lead to my death and that I was crazy ,

And i'm white , (well kind of )

If he had just ran after the first attack, he'd be alive. Instead he stopped while running, turned, and fired at the cops.

The fact that he had already turned and attacked means you can not assume safety because his back to you. It takes an insane person to attack the cops and fire their own weapon at them. I don't know why anyone would risk their lives with someone like that.