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
1…798081828385»

Comments

  • Options
    #2522
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Overheal wrote: »
    No, that’s not a capital offense.

    Brooks wasn't executed, he was shot. No capital punishment was carried out. Not all shootings are executions, some are self-defence etc...............but you already know that.
    Fundamentally I agree that it should be an offense, on statute, if it is to be the justified course of action for a police officer to dispense deadly force in response.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but do you want every eventuality written down in law before a police officer can dispense deadly force in response to being attacked and at risk of physical harm?
    E.g. steal a taser and shoot it at cops - deadly force allowed.
    E.g. steal a gun and shoot it at cops - deadly force allowed.
    E.g. steal a pillow and throw it at cops - deadly force not allowed.
    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    If that's the case, t'wud be very hard to list everything that could potentially cause physical harm to the police officer. For instance a guy trying to shove a pen through your skull which could kill you, do you expect it to be written down that if someone tries to shove a pen through your skull , you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself and if someone attacks you with something that is not written down, then you can't use deadly force to protect yourself?
    However as things stand, stealing a taser and firing it at a cop isn’t a death sentence on the books, in a court of law, before a judge and jury, or as executed by a governor.

    You are correct, it's not an automatic death sentence but cops can (not always) be justified in using deadly force to protect themselves if they are at risk of physical harm. And sometimes the use of deadly force involves death. That's a bit different from a death sentence.


  • Options
    #2523
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Manic Moran wrote: »


    A firearm is lethal force. There is no such thing as an intentional non-lethal use of firearm in US law. There are cases where the use turned out to be non-lethal as the intent is to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill, but if you're pulling the trigger, there had better be a threat which warrants a verdict of justifiable homicide, because death is a not-unreasonable expectation as a result. Bullets have to go somewhere, which is why warning shots are -not- a thing in the US. If it's enough of a threat to pull the trigger, it's enough of a threat to shoot the threat.

    America: a nation of "Double-Ohs" Licensed to Kill.

    Seems to be the logical conclusion:

    Every US citizen has a constitutional right to bear arms, accepted by all courts as including firearms.

    And given that there is no other purpose in US law, according to MM, than shooting with lethal intent it would follow that every US citizen is a de facto James Bond.

    Only with a bigger arse, in most cases.

    What bewilders me is that many in America seem to think this is a good thing.


  • Options
    #2524
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Funny how the "right to bear arms" is usually the only thing people can quote from the 2nd Amendment. There's more to it than that, that always gets left out. There's a whole sentence about a "well regulated militia" that comes before it that everyone skips over.

    Every Tom, Dick and bleedin Harry with a pop gun is not a "well regulated militia".


  • Options
    #2525
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    America: a nation of "Double-Ohs" Licensed to Kill.

    Seems to be the logical conclusion:

    This is not meant to be a personal attack on you but I'd wonder what way you think if you think that's a logical conclusion.
    Every US citizen has a constitutional right to bear arms, accepted by all courts as including firearms.

    Correct so far.
    And given that there is no other purpose in US law, according to MM, than shooting with lethal intent it would follow that every US citizen is a de facto James Bond.

    No, you can target shoot, you can hunt, you can plink and you can use the firearm for self defence. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to shoot someone. Sometimes brandishing it is enough to discourage would-be attackers. But if your life is on the line, you most certainly can use it to protect your life. This can often extend to protecting yourself from non-fatal physical harm too.
    Only with a bigger arse, in most cases.

    :rolleyes:
    What bewilders me is that many in America seem to think this is a good thing.

    It's their country and their laws. I'm sure we have some laws here that they would think are stupid too.

    It's a totally different culture over there. Funny enough Israel has a lot of guns and they allow self-defence too but people don't seem to be ranting and raving about Israel's gun culture or their ability to access firearms to protect themselves.


  • Options
    #2526
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Funny how the "right to bear arms" is usually the only thing people can quote from the 2nd Amendment. There's more to it than that, that always gets left out. There's a whole sentence about a "well regulated militia" that comes before it that everyone skips over.

    Every Tom, Dick and bleedin Harry with a pop gun is not a "well regulated militia".

    Hard to form a militia without being armed though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2527
    ronivek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong but do you want every eventuality written down in law before a police officer can dispense deadly force in response to being attacked and at risk of physical harm?
    E.g. steal a taser and shoot it at cops - deadly force allowed.
    E.g. steal a gun and shoot it at cops - deadly force allowed.
    E.g. steal a pillow and throw it at cops - deadly force not allowed.
    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    If that's the case, t'wud be very hard to list everything that could potentially cause physical harm to the police officer. For instance a guy trying to shove a pen through your skull which could kill you, do you expect it to be written down that if someone tries to shove a pen through your skull , you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself and if someone attacks you with something that is not written down, then you can't use deadly force to protect yourself?

    So are you saying it's not reasonable to legislate for those weapons which are routinely carried by and used by police officers? It's not a very long list; surely the guidelines around taser use and how dangerous they're considered could and should be more robustly examined?

    It seems the argument you're making here is that an individual officer has the power to deliver lethal force based on the circumstances he encounters. I would generally agree with that sentiment.

    Do you think the officer involved in this case displayed good awareness of the circumstances surrounding his encounter with Rayshard Brooks?


  • Options
    #2528
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I was the only person in this whole thread who used the word torture and I have already said I was incorrect to use that language. And I have consistently said that Brooks wasn't shot for things he did in his past, I said he was shot for what he did on the night he was shot, namely DUI, resist arrest, assault two cops, steal a police issue taser and shoot it at one of the cops.

    Brooks' rap sheet is immaterial. It was his actions on the night that got him shot.

    Karma.


  • Options
    #2529
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    ronivek wrote: »
    So are you saying it's not reasonable to legislate for those weapons which are routinely carried by and used by police officers? It's not a very long list; surely the guidelines around taser use and how dangerous they're considered could and should be more robustly examined?

    I was coming at it from the point of view of people attacking the cops. It's impossible to list everything that a cop could be attacked with e.g. gun, taser, knife, sword, hammer, chisel, screwdriver, chair .................. many of these are harmless items if used properly but all have the capability to kill or injure you if someone is intent on doing so.
    It seems the argument you're making here is that an individual officer has the power to deliver lethal force based on the circumstances he encounters. I would generally agree with that sentiment.

    Yes, I believe that should be the case, as long as the police officer genuinely believes he/she is in danger.
    Do you think the officer involved in this case displayed good awareness of the circumstances surrounding his encounter with Rayshard Brooks?

    I think the officers were doing a good job for about 40 minutes and then the thing went pear-shaped. They seemed shocked by Brooks' action and maybe weren't ready for him to do what he did. Maybe they should have been more prepared for the violence Brooks was going to throw at them but then again, Brooks had given no sign that he was about to get all violent with them.


  • Options
    #2530
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    This is not meant to be a personal attack on you but I'd wonder what way you think if you think that's a logical conclusion.

    Read the quote I cited. "There is no such thing as an intentional non-lethal use of firearm in US Law" Not my words; his.
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    No, you can target shoot, you can hunt, you can plink

    You can target shoot and hunt (plink?) in just about every other normal democracy in the world. Is there any such country that has an outright ban on theircitizens owning firearms? I don't think so. America is almost unique in permitting people to carry loaded firearms for their own defence.

    BattleCorp wrote: »
    you can use the firearm for self defence. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to shoot someone. Sometimes brandishing it is enough to discourage would-be attackers. But if your life is on the line, you most certainly can use it to protect your life. This can often extend to protecting yourself from non-fatal physical harm too.

    And in any such case, if MM is right "there is no such thing as an intentional non-lethal use of firearm (sic) in US Law"

    A corollary of this statement is: Once you draw your gun in a confrontation situation, you must be presumed to be intent on killing the other person.




    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Funny enough Israel has a lot of guns and they allow self-defence too but people don't seem to be ranting and raving about Israel's gun culture or their ability to access firearms to protect themselves.

    Nobody here is critical of Israeli behaviour? Are you for real?

    Israelis are armed to the teeth (I've been there) to let their Arab neighbours know who's boss. And they are granted remarkably wide latitude by their courts when turning their Uzis on people who get in their way. Plenty of people on this site have something to say about that.
    So do numerous United Nations resolutions.


  • Options
    #2531
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,854 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The officer involved in the killing now has his job back. Not for any particular element of the incident, but rather, because of an entitlement he was denied to a timely notice of adverse action under city's own rules.

    https://lawandcrime.com/crime/fired-officer-who-was-charged-for-killing-rayshard-brooks-gets-his-job-back/?fbclid=IwAR1UByuKrc7JKvDYzw3vEYdIug-D7aLPAWj3LAJZN-V5knzAz2tyfWQinOA
    “An employee against whom an adverse action is to be taken shall be given a written notice of proposed adverse action, signed by the appointing authority or designee, at least ten working days prior to the effective date of the proposed adverse action.” In this case, the effective date of the discipline was June 14, 2020, and the NPAA and the NFAA were issued to the Appellant’s Union Representative at virtually the same time on June 13, 2020. As such, the City’s actions were not compliant with the ten days prior notice period as required by the Code.

    Regarding the shooting, the officer has asserted his fifth amendment rights and still faces felony murder charges.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2532
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,332 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Brooks can't hurt his kids anymore, the courts only ever kept them Safe for a short while when he was jailed for attacking then.

    That same psychotic violence he showed to his family, ended up forcing a cop to protect himself and society from him.

    The main thing is that the officer is ok again, Brooks kids are safe and no one got hurt.


  • Options
    #2533
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,854 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Danzy wrote: »
    Brooks can't hurt his kids anymore

    iirc nothing was yet proven? Accusations only


  • Options
    #2534
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,246 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    And in any such case, if MM is right "there is no such thing as an intentional non-lethal use of firearm (sic) in US Law"

    A corollary of this statement is: Once you draw your gun in a confrontation situation, you must be presumed to be intent on killing the other person.

    Hmm. I should have said "Discharge" instead of "use", then, though I was commenting at the time on the concept of warning shots or shots to disable. However, yes, once a firearm is pointed, it is fair to presume that there is a willingness to use it. The first rule of firearms safety is to never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, people are able to react on the basis that such intent exists.


  • Options
    #2535
    John Doe1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭John Doe1


    I dont get the obsession with all these police shootings in a country half way across the world who have a wholly different society and relationship with guns than here in Ireland.

    Also, USA comes in 25th in terms of rate of people killed by police so its not even that remarkable in that regard.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country

    The whole black people being shot thing owes to the fact that black people live in poorer more crime-ridden areas which is obviously going to increase the risk of being killed. Its like if there was a twitter storm every time a person from the north inner city in Dublin was arrested by police....


  • Options
    #2536
    Real Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭Real Donald Trump


    Overheal wrote: »
    The officer involved in the killing now has his job back. Not for any particular element of the incident, but rather, because of an entitlement he was denied to a timely notice of adverse action under city's own rules.

    https://lawandcrime.com/crime/fired-officer-who-was-charged-for-killing-rayshard-brooks-gets-his-job-back/?fbclid=IwAR1UByuKrc7JKvDYzw3vEYdIug-D7aLPAWj3LAJZN-V5knzAz2tyfWQinOA



    Regarding the shooting, the officer has asserted his fifth amendment rights and still faces felony murder charges.

    Good, should never have lost it in the first place.


  • Options
    #2537
    hawley
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭hawley


    Just three weeks before fatally shooting Rayshard Brooks in a Wendy’s parking lot, Atlanta Police Officer Garrett Rolfe allegedly broke a man’s collarbone during a DUI stop.

    According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Charles Johnson Jr. filed a lawsuit this week accusing Rolfe of excessive force. Last May, the officer allegedly grabbed the man and threw him to the ground during the stop “thoroughly breaking his collarbone among other minor injuries,” read the federal complaint.
    https://www.revolt.tv/2021/5/14/22436729/cop-rayshard-brooks-collarbone-shooting
    Rolfe's behavior in the Rsyshard Brooks case was much the same. It's frightening to think that he's back in the force. He seems to take the nuclear option as a rule. He needs to try and pull back on his overly confrontational outlook. This case could cost the city a lot of money.


  • Options
    #2538
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    hawley wrote: »
    Just three weeks before fatally shooting Rayshard Brooks in a Wendy’s parking lot, Atlanta Police Officer Garrett Rolfe allegedly broke a man’s collarbone during a DUI stop.

    According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Charles Johnson Jr. filed a lawsuit this week accusing Rolfe of excessive force. Last May, the officer allegedly grabbed the man and threw him to the ground during the stop “thoroughly breaking his collarbone among other minor injuries,” read the federal complaint.
    https://www.revolt.tv/2021/5/14/22436729/cop-rayshard-brooks-collarbone-shooting
    Rolfe's behavior in the Rsyshard Brooks case was much the same. It's frightening to think that he's back in the force. He seems to take the nuclear option as a rule. He needs to try and pull back on his overly confrontational outlook. This case could cost the city a lot of money.




    Whats that got to do with Brooks. Resisting arrest, punching an officer in the face robbing his taser and using it on the officer?


Advertisement