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

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?

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.

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.

ExMachina1000

SnazzyPig wrote: »

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

Close to one a week

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.

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.

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.

lawrencesummers

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Close to one a week

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

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

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?

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.

[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

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

Danzy

lawrencesummers wrote: »

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

Ok, accepted, does not change the justification which was his turning a weapon around towards the police.

At that instant he left them no choice.

Ardent

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?

Your behaviour in this thread can only be explained as the actions of a troll or someone who is incredibly naive.

frag420

Danzy wrote: »

Ok, accepted, does not change the justification which was his turning a weapon around towards the police.

At that instant he left them no choice.

Whats that I hear, the sound of goalposts being pushed?

lawrencesummers

zpehtsfd wrote: »

What's radical about your posts? Well your OP siaid "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?

I was fairly clear, but you didn’t grasp it, so here goes again.

I think the cop is entitled to due process, he is entitled to give his version of events, to be judged when all the facts are assembled.

Not told to clear out his locker because of one or two videos.

I think he will have a very hard time justifying this shooting to keep his job, but he deserves the opportunity to do so.

frag420

Danzy wrote: »

Ok, accepted, does not change the justification which was his turning a weapon around towards the police.

At that instant he left them no choice.

The other cop could have used the supposedly three cartridges he had in his taser?

lawrencesummers

Ardent wrote: »

Your behaviour in this thread can only be explained as the actions of a troll or someone who is incredibly naive.

Why is that?

lawrencesummers

Danzy wrote: »

Ok, accepted, does not change the justification which was his turning a weapon around towards the police.

At that instant he left them no choice.

Well it actually does.

Officers can use lethal force when their in danger.
A person fleeing isn’t putting them at risk.

Danzy

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Well it actually does.

Officers can use lethal force when their in danger.
A person fleeing isn’t putting them at risk.

No, that's not true.A person fleeing can still kill you or others.

joe40

banie01 wrote: »

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.

I don't see the threat to public safety. Even if he had got away the police could simply have arrested him later.

He was shot in the back running away.

It would not have happened in Ireland and that situation could easily have played out in Ireland.

Danzy

frag420 wrote: »

The other cop could have used the supposedly three cartridges he had in his taser?

The suspect was pointing a weapon, the time for tasers was long gone.

lawrencesummers

Danzy wrote: »

No, that's not true.A person fleeing can still kill you or others.

How is that now?

lawrencesummers

Danzy wrote: »

The suspect was pointing a weapon, the time for tasers was long gone.

A non lethal weapon,

the time for three shots in the back never arrives

Danzy

frag420 wrote: »

Whats that I hear, the sound of goalposts being pushed?

No the proper course was taken, it was the direction that the weapon was pointed that meant public safety, the lives of the police, had to see him shot.

It's immaterial to the case but his community is now better for his death, others lives have likely been saved.