nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

lawrencesummers

Cops called because a guy was asleep in his car in the queue for a drive through.
Failed field sobriety test.
Tussled with cops.
Shot and killed.
Looks on the outset like another use of excessive Force by police, but there is so much more wrong with it.

One cop has been fired and the other is Put on leave.

Firing somebody that immediately and without due process is probably in a bid to quell the protests - (but it hasn’t) But it can’t be right, surely these matters need investigation, statements and the a just decision, which may well be dismissal / charges filed etc.

There is a big risk of the authorities in the USA actually losing their own police force if they don’t maintain the law and order and due process that everyone deserves. Has the cop in this instance actually violated the procedures That are given to him for arresting people? If a cop needs to be fired then fine, fire hundreds of them but only after due process.

RIP the victim, On his daughters birthday apparently.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lawrencesummers

Danzy wrote: »

When he was shot, he had turned and taken aim, he was shot in the front.

The bulletholes will disagree. His back was turned and he was running when the first shot was fired.

frag420

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

They didn’t shoot when he was running away. They shot when he had turned back, faced them and aimed.

Are you denying that?

Then you are looking at the wrong video, it is clear he is running away even when he swings his arm around to "aim" at the police...

GO to about 1:20 mins into this video and show me where he was NOT RUNNING AWAY when he aimed at the officers?

Are you denying what is clearly shown in this video?

Let me know if you need a hand moving the goalposts in your reply...

zpehtsfd

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Why is that? What’s radical about what I said? Or do you just disagree with it and can’t find the vocabulary to explain it so you label it?

What's radical about your posts? Well your OP said "But it can’t be right, surely these matters need investigation, statements and the a just decision, which may well be dismissal / charges filed etc.". Clearly you were on the fence as to whether the PO acted with excessive force. Nothing put condemnation ever since.

Are you trolling cause if so i will just ignore you?

Danzy

frag420 wrote: »

And we know that he was not highly violent before they arrived as he was asleep.

When questioned he said he has 1-2 margaritas at his nieces birthday party that day so hardy highly intoxicated and it is plainly obvious from the video that he is not highly intoxicated as he is not falling about the place or stuttering?

Yeah, people are always falling asleep in the Drive thru and non violent people strike the police.

Danzy

lawrencesummers wrote: »
Exactly, not many there are over 900,000 law enforcement in the Us
Of a

Only 1000 are shot in America out of 10 million recorded police interactions.

The very most of them are armed

So given how armed and crazy America is, there are an amazingly small number of innocents killed.

African Americans only represent 25% of the deaths, given they account for half of crime, especially serious crime, that's a significant under representation.

So while there are problems in Americans policing and reform is badly needed, this has been blown out all proportion.

[Deleted User]

frag420 wrote: »

If he was not running away then how could he turn and take aim?

Its like there is a logic vacuum in here?

They didn’t shoot when he was running away. They shot when he had turned back, faced them and aimed.

Are you denying that?

Danzy

frag420 wrote: »

If he was not running away then how could he turn and take aim?

Its like there is a logic vacuum in here?

When he was shot, he had turned and taken aim, he was shot in the front.

lawrencesummers

zpehtsfd wrote: »

If you want to see a person go from reasoned to radical in a couple of hours just read the OP'er post on this thread.

Why is that? What’s radical about what I said? Or do you just disagree with it and can’t find the vocabulary to explain it so you label it?

ExMachina1000

lawrencesummers wrote: »
Exactly, not many there are over 900,000 law enforcement in the Us
Of a

Exactly. Take away their guns. I'm sure they will be fine. No guns in America

lawrencesummers

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Close to one a week

Exactly, not many there are over 900,000 law enforcement in the Us
Of a

banie01

From watching some video and listening to some analysis of this incident.

The police approach to the car, the sobriety test and the incident up until the attempted cuffing all seem to be pretty run of the mill.

The police quickly lost control of the situation then but, that needs to be placed in the caveat of those officers trying to ensure they treated the suspect with appropriate respect particularly in light of the current climate.

When Mr Brooks resisted, took possession of an officer's taser then proceeded to turn and point his weapon in an officer's direction, the only expected outcome was going to be that shots were fired.

This isn't a clear cut bad cop - no donut incident.

There was an implicit threat to public safety, the officers handled the handcuffing and control poorly but this was far from a clearly racist extra judicial murder.

zpehtsfd

If you want to see a person go from reasoned to radical in a couple of hours just read the OP'er post on this thread.

lawrencesummers

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

He wasn’t running away! He turned and took aim at a police officer.

****ing hell

Your watching the wrong video so.

ExMachina1000

SnazzyPig wrote: »

Actually, not many American cops die in the line of duty.

Close to one a week

SnazzyPig

Ardent wrote: »

Can't believe that cop has been immediately fired. It's really sad that a man has lost his life so unnecessarily, but the moment Brooks turns to taze the police it's a cut and dried affair for me.

People forget or don't appreciate the life and death, split-second decision situations these officers are facing every day. In many cases they are dealing with deranged or mentally ill people, every encounter could be their last. Many have died in the line of duty. I am not for one second apologising for police brutality, or the use of excessive force or guns, but simply feel that folks need to consider both sides of the story.

Actually, not many American cops die in the line of duty.

lawrencesummers

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No,I agree with you somewhat. It was excessive. They could have just kept the car and arrested him the next day.

At the same time he turned back and shot the taser at them. I think they ****ed up in the moment. I don't think it's straightforward.

It’s not as straight forward as the George Floyd case that’s for sure, but it again highlights the lack of ability that US cops have in dealing with situations because until now that haven’t needed to handle situations better as they have the ultimate expression of power on their belt, and they rely heavily on it.

No Irish cop would have dealt with that situation the same way, and maybe knowing you have to verbally control situations and keep them from getting out of hand Is a experience they learn when you don’t have a gun to pull.

frag420

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

He wasn’t running away! He turned and took aim at a police officer.

****ing hell

If he was not running away then how could he turn and take aim?

Its like there is a logic vacuum in here?

frag420

Danzy wrote: »

They knew before he was shot that he was highly violent, highly intoxicated and had no regard for other's wellbeing. That was just from their encounter.

And we know that he was not highly violent before they arrived as he was asleep.

When questioned he said he has 1-2 margaritas at his nieces birthday party that day so hardy highly intoxicated and it is plainly obvious from the video that he is not highly intoxicated as he is not falling about the place or stuttering?

Danzy

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No,I agree with you somewhat. It was excessive. They could have just kept the car and arrested him the next day.

At the same time he turned back and shot the taser at them. I think they ****ed up in the moment. I don't think it's straightforward.

I found a neighbour who was knocked down by a drunk driver, you never want to see what it did to him.

I'll not point out how low an individual I think you are for your post.

What if he used the taser to rob a car?

What kind of circus do you want to inflict on people there?

Danzy

frag420 wrote: »

HOw do you know he was a criminal before this happened?

They knew before he was shot that he was highly violent, highly intoxicated and had no regard for other's wellbeing. That was just from their encounter.

[Deleted User]

lawrencesummers wrote: »

For being killed? Are you asking me if his actions were such that warranted his killing?

**** no. Shot dead while running away. **** no.

He deserves a court date, a driving ban, a resisting arrest charge and depending on his history once in court a jail sentence for resisting if he has a criminal history.

He wasn’t running away! He turned and took aim at a police officer.

****ing hell

Danzy

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

National police strike is the way to solve this. A collective boot up the arse is required for those looking to defund or in some cases abolish the police.

The Minneapolis mayor got abused and screamed at for saying he isn't for abolishing the police. That's the mind set out there right now

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/minneapolis-mayor-jacob-frey-walk-of-shame.html

Those protestors were straight out of the most fanatical clergy of the 1950s.

frag420

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why didn’t they shoot him in the lag? Why didn’t the cops commandeer a horse and lasso him? Why didn’t they shoot a lamp post and make it incapacitate him, they turn to each other and say “lights out”?

Because it’s not a Hollywood movie. It’s real life. The criminal resisted arrest, stole a weapon from a policeman, ran away, turned, aimed and fired a weapon at the police man. It was a fully justified kill. Hopefully the cop will take his PD to the cleaners for unfair dismissal.

HOw do you know he was a criminal before this happened?

zpehtsfd

frag420 wrote: »

Wait, your saying that even if he had pointed his finger at them that it would justify shooting him?

IO suggest you read what you typed out loud and listen to what you're saying!

The courts ruled that a California PO was justified in using excessive force when he killed a man for pulling out a vape device from his pocket and assuming a shooting stance.

ChelseaRentBoy

He got why he deserved imo. If he's tazered the cops and then shot them you'd more than likely never even heard about this.

jam_mac_jam

lawrencesummers wrote: »

For being killed? Are you asking me if his actions were such that warranted his killing?

**** no. Shot dead while running away. **** no.

He deserves a court date, a driving ban, a resisting arrest charge and depending on his history once in court a jail sentence for resisting if he has a criminal history.

No,I agree with you somewhat. It was excessive. They could have just kept the car and arrested him the next day.

At the same time he turned back and shot the taser at them. I think they ****ed up in the moment. I don't think it's straightforward.

Danzy

zpehtsfd wrote: »

He was IDed and searched initially, so no they knew he didn't have a gun.

So they were 100% certain, others can make mistakes, especially in dealing with high stress conditions, so they should have bet their life.

lawrencesummers

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

If you want yes?

Do you think he holds no responsibility for what happened to him?

For being killed? Are you asking me if his actions were such that warranted his killing?

**** no. Shot dead while running away. **** no.

He deserves a court date, a driving ban, a resisting arrest charge and depending on his history once in court a jail sentence for resisting if he has a criminal history.

weldoninhio

frag420 wrote: »

Ands a non lethal weapon does not kill its why the police use them!

And we are still waiting to know if indeed the taser fired, it could for all we know be a bright light that emitted when the trigger is pulled? We dont know if it was s single cartridge taser or a multiple cartridge taser?

Why didnt the other cop use his taser to subdue the victim, why meat non lethal force with lethal force?

Why didn’t they shoot him in the lag? Why didn’t the cops commandeer a horse and lasso him? Why didn’t they shoot a lamp post and make it incapacitate him, they turn to each other and say “lights out”?

Because it’s not a Hollywood movie. It’s real life. The criminal resisted arrest, stole a weapon from a policeman, ran away, turned, aimed and fired a weapon at the police man. It was a fully justified kill. Hopefully the cop will take his PD to the cleaners for unfair dismissal.

[Deleted User]

frag420 wrote: »

So it was the taser 7 they used was it...?

The x3 model has three shots, maybe that was what the police had in which case they had ample opportunity between the two offices to subdue the victim without shooting him dead!

That’s what I’d like to discuss, frag.

I just can’t stand the mistruths so far. Do we know the colour of the staff in Wendy’s who made the call? No. So we can’t say they the cops were called only because he was black.

He wasn’t parked up and asleep he was in the queue for the drive through and asleep. Was this why he was shot, No. If the cops wanted to kill him just because he is black they could have done so now.

Did he resist arrest, steal a taser, and aim it at the police officer? Yes.

Did the police act appropriately? I’m not so sure they did but I think it’s more to do with their training and fitness levels rather than because they saw a black man and wanted to kill him.