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

mynamejeff

declanflynn wrote: »

fire 3 or 4 times at the upper body and miss do u think the bullet stops?

a lot of police forces in the US issue bullets that are designed to expend all or most of their energy on what ever they hit specifically to prevent over penetration.

Danzy

declanflynn wrote: »

fire 3 or 4 times at the upper body and miss do u think the bullet stops?

No, but the target is so much bigger and the mass will stop the bullet travelling.

Bullet will go through the most of a leg easily.

So you are aiming at a target an Olympic shooter might miss and if you hit, it may have no effect and the bullet might bounce off the tarmac.

Danzy

joseywhales wrote: »

Ok I will try this again, he was armed with a non lethal.

He was not a threat to officers, he may have been a threat to others, there is no evidence that he would be more dangerous than any other citizen who carries a tazer.

He resisted arrest but showed no signs of aggression.

So why was lethal action required is what I am trying to discuss, was there some other non lethal action that could have been taken?

You believe the officers had no choice but to kill the man?

Finally, I am glad you are here to represent most of the posters here, Why would the "the leg shot thing" be common sense, I have never shot a gun, I imagine most people here have never tried a leg shot on a moving target. I appreciate the information from the replies.

Are you on the correct thread?

joseywhales

Danzy wrote: »

Are you on the correct thread?

I think so, although from the ballistics expertise, I could be mistaken and be in a shooting forum

Danzy

joseywhales wrote: »

I think so, although from the ballistics expertise, I could be mistaken and be in a shooting forum

Very good.

mynamejeff

joseywhales wrote: »

Ok I will try this again, he was armed with a non lethal.

He was not a threat to officers, he may have been a threat to others, there is no evidence that he would be more dangerous than any other citizen who carries a tazer.

He resisted arrest but showed no signs of aggression.

So why was lethal action required is what I am trying to discuss, was there some other non lethal action that could have been taken?

You believe the officers had no choice but to kill the man?

Finally, I am glad you are here to represent most of the posters here, Why would the "the leg shot thing" be common sense, I have never shot a gun, I imagine most people here have never tried a leg shot on a moving target. I appreciate the information from the replies.

youll have to try at least one more time ,

he was armed with less that lethal , I ll let you google the difference .

he was a threat to officers , he turned and pointed the weapon at them, and discharges it at them . what do you think he was gona do next ?

how did he resist arrest with out showing ant signs of aggression ?

finally why would you post this if you have no understanding of firearms ?

Its seems that you are trying to assert that this sweet innocent young black man was mowed down by racist cops out to carry out some kind of genocide against black people.

like I said your trying to make it something that it isn't

The Nal

The taser is not non lethal. Over 1000 people have died in the last 20 years in America after being tasered by police. So did Dalian Atkinson.

But people have issues with choke holds.

joseywhales

mynamejeff wrote: »

youll have to try at least one more time ,

he was armed with less that lethal , I ll let you google the difference .

he was a threat to officers , he turned and pointed the weapon at them, and discharges it at them . what do you think he was gona do next ?

how did he resist arrest with out showing ant signs of aggression ?

finally why would you post this if you have no understanding of firearms ?

Its seems that you are trying to assert that this sweet innocent young black man was mowed down by racist cops out to carry out some kind of genocide against black people.

like I said your trying to make it something that it isn't

Well I can assure you, I am not trying to assert that, I am trying to understand if there was a non lethal option available to the police officers.

I believe that defensive action is not aggression. He has defied their authority but he has not harmed them and he did not initiate contact.

My original post was a question not an assertion.

My original post for context:

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

.....

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

Charles Babbage

mynamejeff wrote: »

he was armed , he fought the police and stole a tazer then aimed it at the police

A tazer is not a lethal weapon in Georgia.

mynamejeff wrote:

he was being arrested for DUI , that cant be done the day after ,

In Ireland, if you refuse a test then you get the same penalty anyway. He was also resisting arrest, which can be prosecuted anyway.

He wasn't going anywhere, he wasn't going to kill anyone, they knew where he lived, just arrest him some other time.

The Nal

joseywhales wrote: »

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

Not to harp on about it but yep

Danzy

Charles Babbage wrote: »

He wasn't going anywhere, he wasn't going to kill anyone, they knew where he lived, just arrest him some other time.

You have no idea on that, he had already shown that he had no concern with public safety, shown he was violent, had a weapon, he might have hijacked a car, crashed it killed others.

He was facing a return to Folsom prison, few more years to serve for torturing his children, he got a 7 year sentence so he had no reason to be at home the following day.

Letting the violent drunk take a weapon and hope it works out ok for the general public was not an option.

mynamejeff

joseywhales wrote: »

Well I can assure you, I am not trying to assert that, I am trying to understand if there was a non lethal option available to the police officers.

I believe that defensive action is not aggression. He has defied their authority but he has not harmed them and he did not initiate contact.

My original post was a question not an assertion.

My original post for context:

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

.....

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

I think the events are clear , theres lots of video of it,

as he was being placed under arrest for dui he fought the two cops on the ground punching one , but that's not aggression or harmful. the cops didn't pull him over he was passed out in a drive thru , again your trying to paint this as something it isn't for whatever reason ...

if brooks hadn't resisted a very lawful action by the police he would be alive an well and a lot of people would still have jobs .

its on him , on America for being a mess

Danzy

The Nal wrote: »

Not to harp on about it but yep

That will occasionally kill people, especially as seen recently when the person has a bad heart and opioid drug use.

In reality any form of restraint will kill some and that will be recorded and used.

Where to from here.

ExMachina1000

I wonder will the jury use this thread as part of the deliberations

Danzy

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I wonder will the jury use this thread as part of the deliberations

This will replace the Jury.

AbusesToilets

joseywhales wrote: »

Well I can assure you, I am not trying to assert that, I am trying to understand if there was a non lethal option available to the police officers.

I believe that defensive action is not aggression. He has defied their authority but he has not harmed them and he did not initiate contact.

My original post was a question not an assertion.

My original post for context:

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

.....

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

You are deliberately ignoring the evidence of the video. He repeatedly punched the officers, took their tazer and shot them with it.

If the police want to arrest you, you don't get to defy their authority without consequence.

Your continuing harping about shooting him in the leg or whatever is absolute fantasy nonsense. I've done a lot of pistol shooting, hitting a moving target in a non stressful environment, at that range, is hard enough to begin with while aiming center mass. I'd also add, there's nothing non-lethal about shooting someone in the leg. You can easily sever an artery and bleed out in minutes.

Danzy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are deliberately ignoring the evidence of the video. He repeatedly punched the officers, took their tazer and shot them with it.

If the police want to arrest you, you don't get to defy their authority without consequence.

Your continuing harping about shooting him in the leg or whatever is absolute fantasy nonsense. I've done a lot of pistol shooting, hitting a moving target in a non stressful environment, at that range, is hard enough to begin with while aiming center mass. I'd also add, there's nothing non-lethal about shooting someone in the leg. You can easily sever an artery and bleed out in minutes.

The famous John Philpott Curran shot a man in a duel, he aimed for his leg, but hit the artery and your man bled out.

Something he regretted all his life

The Nal

Danzy wrote: »

That will occasionally kill people, especially as seen recently when the person has a bad heart and opioid drug use.

In reality any form of restraint will kill some and that will be recorded and used.

Where to from here.

It will kill very very few people if done correctly - ie used for a few seconds. Will certainly kill less people than tasters or bullets.

In the case of George Floyd, he was already handcuffed and had a knee on his neck for 9 minutes so that looks like murder to me. Properly applied choke shouldn't even take 9 seconds.

joseywhales

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are deliberately ignoring the evidence of the video. He repeatedly punched the officers, took their tazer and shot them with it.

If the police want to arrest you, you don't get to defy their authority without consequence.

Your continuing harping about shooting him in the leg or whatever is absolute fantasy nonsense. I've done a lot of pistol shooting, hitting a moving target in a non stressful environment, at that range, is hard enough to begin with while aiming center mass. I'd also add, there's nothing non-lethal about shooting someone in the leg. You can easily sever an artery and bleed out in minutes.

Are you saying that lethal force was the only method to resolve this situation?

You appear to be arguing whether the police officer was justified in killing the man, I am not arguing that. I am questioning whether there is a better way to handle these situations which would result in less aggregate death(both police and alleged criminal).

vetinari

There are two points that get raised again and again here that are completely bad faith arguments.

1) A taser could have killed or seriously injured the cop. The people arguing this don't really believe this. They probably have no issue with a cop using a taser.

2) The US has far more guns so this police stop is totally different to Ireland. The police in his situation had done a pat down for weapons.
Brooks might still have had a weapon hidden on him but now within easy reach. The cop who shot him knew it was a taser that was being pointed at him.

Disturbingly there are a lot of people here to view shooting someone as justifiable if they aim a taser at you.

AbusesToilets

joseywhales wrote: »

Are you saying that lethal force was the only method to resolve this situation?

You appear to be arguing whether the police officer was justified in killing the man, I am not arguing that. I am questioning whether there is a better way to handle these situations which would result in less aggregate death(both police and alleged criminal).

Yea, there was. It was the suspect complying with the police. Everything that occurred after that flowed from his decision to resist and then attack the officers, end of. He was entirely the architect of his death.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

There are two points that get raised again and again here that are completely bad faith arguments.

1) A taser could have killed or seriously injured the cop. The people arguing this don't really believe this. They probably have no issue with a cop using a taser.

2) The US has far more guns so this police stop is totally different to Ireland. The police in his situation had done a pat down for weapons.
Brooks might still have had a weapon hidden on him but now within easy reach. The cop who shot him knew it was a taser that was being pointed at him.

Disturbingly there are a lot of people here to view shooting someone as justifiable if they aim a taser at you.

He attacked the cops, took their weapon and used it against them. Why is this continually hand waved away as being justifiable? Stating the police didn't follow proper escalation of force protocols IS the bad faith argument being made here.

The Nal

vetinari wrote: »

There are two points that get raised again and again here that are completely bad faith arguments.

1) A taser could have killed or seriously injured the cop. The people arguing this don't really believe this. They probably have no issue with a cop using a taser.

2) The US has far more guns so this police stop is totally different to Ireland. The police in his situation had done a pat down for weapons.
Brooks might still have had a weapon hidden on him but now within easy reach. The cop who shot him knew it was a taser that was being pointed at him.

Disturbingly there are a lot of people here to view shooting someone as justifiable if they aim a taser at you.

Tasers kill people. This is fact.

The guy was fairly crazed. Should they have let him run away and maybe taser some randomer? Maybe kill someone?

vetinari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He attacked the cops, took their weapon and used it against them. Why is this continually hand waved away as being justifiable? Stating the police didn't follow proper escalation of force protocols IS the bad faith argument being made here.

It's not justifiable to use lethal force if your life is not in danger.
A taser doesn't put the police officer's life in danger.

Danzy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He attacked the cops, took their weapon and used it against them. Why is this continually hand waved away as being justifiable? Stating the police didn't follow proper escalation of force protocols IS the bad faith argument being made here.

Class divide.The working class cop should have been willing to take a bullet to conform to middle class activists views.

One above says yes he could essily have had a hidden gun but it doesn't change his view, the prole should have been open to dying.

vetinari

The Nal wrote: »

Tasers kill people. This is fact.

The guy was fairly crazed. Should they have let him run away and maybe taser some randomer? Maybe kill someone?

This is exactly the bad faith argument I was talking about.

Police use tasers every day and I bet you have no issues with it.
Now that someone robs a taser, it's this lethal weapon?

vetinari

Danzy wrote: »

Class divide.The working class cop should have been willing to take a bullet to conform to middle class activists views.

One above says yes he could essily have had a hidden gun but it doesn't change his view, the prole should have been open to dying.

My point was that the cop did not think the suspect had a gun.
By hidden I mean, maybe a knife in a sock. It's pretty hard to hide a gun from a full pat down.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

It's not justifiable to use lethal force if your life is not in danger.
A taser doesn't put the police officer's life in danger.

The second he started attacking the police, it became a potentially lethal confrontation. He could have grabbed a pistol, fatally injured them with strikes, or with the tazer. The police are entirely within their right to respond proportionally at that point.

Danzy

vetinari wrote: »

This is exactly the bad faith argument I was talking about.

Police use tasers every day and I bet you have no issues with it.
Now that someone robs a taser, it's this lethal weapon?

Under Georgia law it is. Probably because it affords the suspect a chance to use the gun from the incapacitated officer

The police have a monopoly on violence. It's the basis of any fair or functioning society. It can be abused, no doubt but without it, life as a society is not possible.

Danzy

vetinari wrote: »

My point was that the cop did not think the suspect had a gun.
By hidden I mean, maybe a knife in a sock. It's pretty hard to hide a gun from a full pat down.

The cop couldn't be certain of that.

Once the suspect pointed a weapon he had to he shot. The pointing alone was enough to justify that decision, even if he had no taser.