Let's Start A Riot?!?!

Looks like Rayshard Brooks got shot twice in the back, DA is saying charges could come as soon as this week.

there you go! thank you. now that youve admitted your bias- you need to ask yourself the following questions:

1. why should anyone at all listen to your voice in this discussion? if you are incapable of seeing both sides, your opinion is literally worthless.

but here, let me show you why your logic is flawed for the second question by changing one word of your argument:


2. Why should anyone listen to your voice in this if you make a subjective absolutism like this? its quite literally the argument a racist bigot would make - hence the reason all i would have to do is change one word in your argument to make an overtly racist statement. Its born from bigotry and willful ignorance and is as far removed from reality as physically possible.

of course he was shot in the back? did you watch the Security camera footage?

The guy is running from the cops, and then turns and shoots the tazer at the cop, who discarded his own tazer and shot him within the second of the dude aiming the tazer.

there is literally no instance in which this was not a justified shooting. they are literally charging this cop because of politics and not wanting the peasantry to burn atlanta to the ground.

This video covers both the cellphone video, and security footage where you can clearly see him discharge the tazer at the cop. being shot in the back does not matter in this instance, and if it did, then you could just shoot at cops while running away willy nilly and they couldnt do ***for fear of hitting you in the back.

Vic, put me down on the "will be acquitted" group for rulings. I may be wrong tho. I know we all like making predictions.

because for some reason half the times i link a video here it breaks.

It depends on the charges, I think murder is too steep, but negligent homicide is convictable.

not even negligent homicide; its quite literally in the atlanta PD guidelines that a tazer being deployed against an officer warrants use of lethal force. its literally codified in their law enforcement doctrine and guidelines. Tazers are considered 'less lethal' not 'non lethal' when it comes to use of force.

This cop will walk. This cop can have his job back if he wants as well. Hell likely sue the living piss out of the department and win given that his innocence here is quite literally clear as day.

They won't get murder, but firing a weapon at an unarmed, fleeing man? Definitely gets you into manslaughter territory.

DAs aren't going to overcharge these cases 1) because securing convictions against police is notoriously difficult and 2) they've still gotta work with the cops until CHAZ annexes the rest of the country.

You're right Skull about people and their wild predictions.

incorrect- he was not unarmed, and he fired the weapon at the police officer.

They can try that, but the second the report showed Brooks was shot in the back, "self-defense" went completely out the window. He wasn't a threat any longer, and if the prosecutor isn't a moron he's going to hammer that point into the core of the Earth.

Why not just let him run for a bit? He is drunk, and you got his car, where is he going?

Better yet:
Body cameras need to be running 100% of the time w/o the capability to be turned off by the officer.
Still the problem exists of who controls all that saved footage though......

Exactly. I'm wondering where Georgia is on that CORONA Increase Map in the other thread.

Sadly, we've seen too much of that lately....

i'm sorry but that is not how it works. If you shoot anything at a cop, even if you are fleeing, it remains self defense. he literally shot a tazer at the cops as he was running. have you not watched this video? hes running and turns backwards while running and shoots at them. the cop discards his tazer the second he shoots, and pulls his weapon and fires in under a second. it looks like he actually even hit the cop since the cop staggered into the car as he fired.

He could flee into a person's residence??? Not saying that is reason to shoot him, but you're advocating the police not pursue in hopes he tires out???

I'm advocating the police not shoot a drunk that is running away from them.

what if someone goes out into the streets, mows down a dozen people, drops the weapon and runs?

foir anyone who doesnt want to be fussed with actually watching the video.

How is this relevant?

well he was using a tazer; it can only be fired so many times. the bigger threat is him actually tazing a cop and taking his gun.

"But hide tazers can only be fired once"

this was a model x2 tazer - police standard issue. it can be fired twice, and it can be used to dliver multiple times in drive mode or fire mode.

That was almost in their custody. Bad things could happen if they let him escape. He's already resisted arrest and grabbed one of their weapons. He gonna be all peaceful when running away?

well this theoretical person would be unarmed at that point right? should the cops pursue or shoot?

if hes unarmed? pursue.
if hes armed? pursue.
if hes shooting at the cops? Shoot him.

Actually it does matter ... a lot. The law is quite clear on the issue, someone running away from you is no longer considered a threat and shooting them is considered murder. What you just said is that the law that applies to us lowly civilians shouldn't apply to the great and mighty Police Officers.

What I'm referring to is the doctrine of justified homicide and self defense. If someone is attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on myself, I am justified in using deadly force to prevent that. If that person stops attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on me or has already inflict that harm on someone else, I am not allowed to kill them after the fact. This is a fundamental element in castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.

If someone is attempting to rob a civilian at gun point, shots and misses then turns to run away, that civilian can not pull a pistol and shot them in the back. That would be murder two at a minimum.

Now swap civilian with "officer" and nothing should change. Unless of course the law really doesn't apply to the Police, I mean they can do stuff like plant evidence and still keep their job.

You misunderstand me; I'm not arguing the legality of it (which is still dubious). I'm arguing what's going to happen in a courtroom, where any prosecutor who isn't an idiot is going to point out that a trained police officer couldn't do anything to control a fleeing drunk - who almost certainly felt like his life was in danger - that didn't involve shooting him IN THE BACK. Unless that jury is twelve cops, no one is going to look kindly on that.

If I'm the cop I aim for a plea deal to negligent homicide; if I'm the DA, I take it. Crowds won't like it but it's as good as either side is likely to do. Zero chance this guy gets his job back, though; you're out of your mind if you think that'll happen. Other cities? Maybe. Not Atlanta.

So your saying Police Officers don't need to follow the laws every other person in the USA needs to?

Guess what these protests, riots and burnings are about? Police Officers getting preferential legal treatment and not having the follow the law.

no thats not how it works. if you shoot at someone in the process of fleeing, you are no longer fleeing - that is a fact. If it wasn't, you could just run from a cop shooting over your shoulder and theyd never be able to shoot back at you. do you think that is realistic or logical or inline with the law at all?