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

Donald Trump

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Are you insane or just cannot read? Its in the very start of the case that YOU have quoted:

"The defendant’s keys were in the ignition"
"had been found with the keys in the ignition turned to the ready position "

Now, I can go back and quote your original statement and I can then quote mine. The qualification of where the keys are isnt some throwaway part, its stated twice in the judgement and was stressed by the DPP and State because it was very very important to the case.

I wont even get into the last part of your waffle concerning proving your own innocence.

Look. You're just sickened and digging a bigger hole for yourself. I have no idea why you are even trying to argue

1) I said that "In Ireland you would likely be done for being found asleep in the drivers seat of a car while drunk if you have the keys in your possession"
2) You said there was "no such offence in Ireland"

3) I give you link to relevant statute
4) You start going on about keys being in a pocket (for whatever reason you want to move the goalposts to faff around). You made up that detail because it is not something I said, nor is it relevant to the US case.

5) I send you link to supreme court link to a relevant case.

So you are still of the opinion that your claim, which I detailed in point 2 above is correct? Seriously? What is lacking that you want to try to argue something that is clearly false, with a stranger on the internet?

That case was an appeal to the Supreme Court. Perhaps you should have been the solicitor/barrister because you could have won it on your argument that there is "no such offence in Ireland". Yet it went through the courts system, all the way. Imagine that! And the best argument that man's barristers could come up with was that he was not "in control" of the vehicle because he was asleep.

You are simply wrong and should stop now before you start to look even more silly.

Why do you still appear to think there is no such offence in Ireland? Seriously? After being sent a link to both the statute and an Supreme Court decision on the technicalities of the law.

Edit: Oh, btw, regarding your claim of "waffle", you should perhaps contact the Supreme Court judge in question who found (in the link I posted)

A presumption of intention to drive a vehicle as set out under section 50 (8) of the Road Traffic Act, only arose where the Court was satisfied that the defendant was in charge of the vehicle. If the trial judge was satisfied that the defendant was in fact in charge of the vehicle, the presumption was raised and it fell to the defendant to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial judge.

I know there are some big words, and perhaps you didn't understand them all, but maybe you can find someone else to go through it with you. But it basically says that if the judge was satisfied that a defendant is "in charge" of a vehicle, then there is a presumption that they intended to drive it unless they can prove otherwise.

Overheal

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Can I ask you what where the police to do when there is someone who's just been violent pointing a Taser towards them ?

Tackle him. Taser is used up and the lad is drunk as all else. They already knew he had no other weapons. taser has an effective range and the guy was putting that space between them. Cops instead used live fire with kids present in at least one of the vehicles. Potential for crossfire was alarmingly high: if cop had missed or kept firing while brooks jinked behind a car with some family in it - heck, what if brooks had assaulted one of the drivers filming, what would have been the result? There’s an incredibly high chance the cop would have shot and killed a member of the public. Over a taser.

y0ssar1an22

anyone watching this press conference?

the whole family are giving accounts of what Rayshard was like as a person.

At the start the lawyer said they wont be going into details on the case. I'm struggling to see the point of this?

ronivek

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

anyone watching this press conference?

the whole family are giving accounts of what Rayshard was like as a person.

At the start the lawyer said they wont be going into details on the case. I'm struggling to see the point of this?

Probably trying to show him as being a complex human being who wasn't just a criminal and nothing else.

Contrasted with the statements such as those made in this thread that he was a child torturer and dangerously violent etc.

y0ssar1an22

ronivek wrote: »

Probably trying to show him as being a complex human being who wasn't just a criminal and nothing else.

Contrasted with the statements such as those made in this thread that he was a child torturer and dangerously violent etc.

yeah. they had his daugher there. it was her birthday that day. and how she had a pretty dress on and had cupcakes, etc.

begs the question, if Rayshard was such a family man, why was he out drinking when it was his daughters birthday?

y0ssar1an22

apparently the reason for resisting arrest was that george floyd died while in handcuffs.

i just watched the vid for the 1st time. it was all peaceful until he was getting cuffed and fairly lost the plot it must be said. also swung a punch at an officer.

Stablelad123

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

apparently the reason for resisting arrest was that george floyd died while in handcuffs.

i just watched the vid for the 1st time. it was all peaceful until he was getting cuffed and fairly lost the plot it must be said. also swung a punch at an officer.

Do you think the fact that he was out on probation had something to do with it?

ronivek

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

apparently the reason for resisting arrest was that george floyd died while in handcuffs.

i just watched the vid for the 1st time. it was all peaceful until he was getting cuffed and fairly lost the plot it must be said. also swung a punch at an officer.

Some people have a genuine fear of police officers. This guy was both on parole/probation and had numerous negative interactions with police; so whether you consider his perspective justified or not I think most would agree he was afraid of the consequences of the encounter.

Add alcohol and whatever other substances he may have been on to the mix and nobody really knows what kind of state of mind he was in.

However there would have been zero issue if the officers were trained and skilled enough to subdue him correctly in the first place. People resisting arrest is not a new thing; it happens regularly and they should be able to deal with it appropriately without having to resort to lethal force.

Overheal

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

yeah. they had his daugher there. it was her birthday that day. and how she had a pretty dress on and had cupcakes, etc.

begs the question, if Rayshard was such a family man, why was he out drinking when it was his daughters birthday?

To be fair he could have been getting her nuggets. Nuggets have a cult following in the US.

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

Tackle him. Taser is used up and the lad is drunk as all else. They already knew he had no other weapons. taser has an effective range and the guy was putting that space between them. Cops instead used live fire with kids present in at least one of the vehicles. Potential for crossfire was alarmingly high: if cop had missed or kept firing while brooks jinked behind a car with some family in it - heck, what if brooks had assaulted one of the drivers filming, what would have been the result? There’s an incredibly high chance the cop would have shot and killed a member of the public. Over a taser.

Your post is full of WHAT IFS as why they should have tackled him so WHAT IF he taser's the first cop and then gets his hands on his fire arm ?

Do you hold anyone responsible for there own actions or just Police ?

walshb

Pointless back and forth here

Sleeping man murdered in his car is what many want to see here...

Overheal

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What if he taser's the first cop and then gets his hands on his fire arm ?

Hard to pull off when you’re running away and not toward

kippy

There are multitudes of issues at play here on this and other similiar cases however one of the key problems in the US is the widespread availability and legality of guns and dangerous weapons.
This variable places a totally different slant on any interactions between people in general and law enforcement and others specifically.
But the yanks know better.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

Hard to pull off when you’re running away and not toward

so intoxicated that he fell asleep in a drive thru , consequences of his arrest was possibly 4 years back in jail
violently resisted cops with punch's was tazed to no avail , Sometimes happens due to intoxication google it . stole weapon discharged it at cops . #

your narrative and agenda has already been explored on this thread and debunked as false

yourdeadwright

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

yeah. they had his daugher there. it was her birthday that day. and how she had a pretty dress on and had cupcakes, etc.

begs the question, if Rayshard was such a family man, why was he out drinking when it was his daughters birthday?

Are the rumours he was on parole for beating his kids ?

ronivek

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Your post is full of WHAT IFS as why they should have tackled him so WHAT IF he taser's the first cop and then gets his hands on his fire arm ?

Do you hold anyone responsible for there own actions or just Police ?

Then the second cop shoots him as he now has acquired a lethal weapon and has already fired a taser so it's pretty reasonable to assume he might fire the gun.

But he didn't have a gun. He was nowhere near having a gun; he was several meters away from the officer and running in the opposite direction when he was shot.

"Holding people responsible" in this case means arrest and prosecution. That's how the justice system in the USA and pretty much every other country on the planet operates; it doesn't operate some sort of Judge Dredd on-the-spot execution system.

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

so intoxicated that he fell asleep in a drive thru , consequences of his arrest was possibly 4 years back in jail
violently resisted cops with punch's was tazed to no avail , Sometimes happens due to intoxication google it . stole weapon discharged it at cops . #

your narrative and agenda has already been explored on this thread and debunked as false

“False?” Explain

yourdeadwright

ronivek wrote: »

Then the second cop shoots him as he now has acquired a lethal weapon and has already fired a taser so it's pretty reasonable to assume he might fire the gun.

But he didn't have a gun. He was nowhere near having a gun; he was several meters away from the officer and running in the opposite direction when he was shot.

"Holding people responsible" in this case means arrest and prosecution. That's how the justice system in the USA and pretty much every other country on the planet operates; it doesn't operate some sort of Judge Dredd on-the-spot execution system.

He had a Taser which is a weapon, which he pointed at the police, he acquired it from wrestling and punching the police men ,

It was non violent arrest until he made it violent, because he knew the arrest as a parole violation ,

Overheal

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Do you hold anyone responsible for there own actions or just Police ?

Society holds people responsible for their own actions through, you guessed it, policing.

If police aren’t held accountable first and foremost how can they hope to hold anyone else accountable?

I’m a tax paying voter and I have every reason to hold my police force accountable.

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

Society holds people responsible for their own actions through, you guessed it, policing.

If police aren’t held accountable first and foremost how can they hope to hold anyone else accountable?

I’m a tax paying voter and I have every reason to hold my police force accountable.

They tried to arrest him and hold him responsible but he made it violent, He made those choices,

What was he on parole for do you know ?

ronivek

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Are the rumours he was on parole for beating his kids ?

Why does it matter when considering the shooting incident?

For what it's worth here is his list of convictions:

OFFENSE: simple battery
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

OFFENSE: cruelty to children
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

OFFENSE: FALSE IMPRISONMENT
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 7 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

OFFENSE: family violence battery
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

OFFENSE: THEFT BY REC STOLEN PROP
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013
SENTENCE LENGTH: 7 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

OFFENSE: CRMNL INTERFERE GOVT PROP
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013
SENTENCE LENGTH: 5 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

OFFENSE: obstr of law enf officer
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

There are a number of ways you could interpret those convictions.

One interpretation might be that he was refusing to let his child/children return to their mother for some reason and he got into a physical confrontation with her which led to police involvement; and since he had previous convictions the book was thrown at him.

I haven't seen any of the details of the cases (and I don't believe anyone else has either) so it's all just speculation.

Again though; why does it matter when discussing the shooting?

walshb

ronivek wrote: »

Why does it matter when considering the shooting incident?

For what it's worth here is his list of convictions:

There are a number of ways you could interpret those convictions.

One interpretation might be that he was refusing to let his child/children return to their mother for some reason and he got into a physical confrontation with her which led to police involvement.

I haven't seen any of the details of the cases (and I don't believe anyone else has either) so it's all just speculation.

Again though; why does it matter when discussing the shooting?

It does matter to paint a picture of what type character the cops were dealing with....

And his character shone through on Friday night....

y0ssar1an22

Stablelad123 wrote: »

Do you think the fact that he was out on probation had something to do with it?

for what he did up to the point of resisting arrest, would that have been enough to breach his bail conditions? i have no clue.

Overheal

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

for what he did up to the point of resisting arrest, would that have been enough to breach his bail conditions? i have no clue.

DUI/DWI yeah.

yourdeadwright

ronivek wrote: »

Why does it matter when considering the shooting incident?

For what it's worth here is his list of convictions:

There are a number of ways you could interpret those convictions.

One interpretation might be that he was refusing to let his child/children return to their mother for some reason and he got into a physical confrontation with her which led to police involvement; and since he had previous convictions the book was thrown at him.

I haven't seen any of the details of the cases (and I don't believe anyone else has either) so it's all just speculation.

Again though; why does it matter when discussing the shooting?

I asked because someone mentioned his family talking about how much of family man and great da he was , that doesn't really add up ,

Nothing to do with the shooting but a bit strange ,

y0ssar1an22

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I asked because someone mentioned his family talking about how much of family man and great da he was , that doesn't really add up ,

Nothing to do with the shooting but a bit strange ,

they were. the usual platitudes that dead people receive.

think it was his brother also reached out to celebrities, to contact him directly with any financial aid (that was from the press conference).

There were maybe 10-15 family members, 2 solicitors as well.

as an aside, the solicitor presented a picture of another car with a bullet hole that the cops hit by accident, while also stating that they didnt wish to go into specifics on the case.

y0ssar1an22

Overheal wrote: »

DUI/DWI yeah.

was that not refuted given the fact he wasn't in control of the car? ie: it wasnt turned on?

but if what he did was enough to breach his bail conditions, you can see why resisted arrest and legged it.

ronivek

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I asked because someone mentioned his family talking about how much of family man and great da he was , that doesn't really add up ,

Nothing to do with the shooting but a bit strange ,

I mean there are a lot of ways you could tell the story of those convictions.

If I wanted to paint him in a negative light I could go the whole child torture route; which is possible but I suspect would have led to more serious charges. Also would seem far fetched that a torturer would be allowed attend the birthday of his daughter and have his family speaking out after his death the way they did.

If I wanted to go way over the other end of the spectrum looking at those charges:
1) Guy could have made a stupid drunken decision to pull the badge off a police car.
2) Police take personal affront at his actions and assault him claiming he resisted arrest while conveniently forgetting to turn on their bodycams.
3) DA and Police conspire to throw the book at him.
4) Guy can't afford anything other than a public defender and ends up pleading guilty.
5) Guy is now an offender.
6) Has his kids at home cooking them dinner.
7) Is late bringing them home and wife comes over accusing him and slapping him.
8) He restrains her and leaves some bruises on her.
9) She calls police, they arrive and see the bruises, children, and his record; and they crucify him.

Now I'm not saying either of those is the real truth here; but equally I don't think you can say that either option is impossible based on what we've seen from the USA even very recently.

We simply don't know; but certain people are assuming the extremely negative end of the scale without any of the facts.

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

Society holds people responsible for their own actions through, you guessed it, policing.

If police aren’t held accountable first and foremost how can they hope to hold anyone else accountable?

I’m a tax paying voter and I have every reason to hold my police force accountable.

When he pointed a weapon they had a right to defend their lives and an obligation to the public to stop him.

If he was left go, he may have robbed a car with that taser to pick up his daughter he may have killed someone drunk driving he may have beaten his daughter to death this time.

Thankfully it worked out with only the violent psycho dead.
His family and community are now safer. Which is a sad state of affairs to be in.

Overheal

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

was that not refuted given the fact he wasn't in control of the car? ie: it wasnt turned on?

but if what he did was enough to breach his bail conditions, you can see why resisted arrest and legged it.

Asleep behind the wheel in the drive thru lane when trouble started so I’d say yeah