Death of Rayshard Brooks (Ideal: bus, assess, deal)

[CleverOne]

Originally Posted by architect77

I thought that why cops had guns to use against anyone who doesn’t obey their orders we as a society have charged them with keeping the peace and have given them weapons to enforce that peace.

I agree their scope needs to be narrowed and they not be called for every issue under the sun to take care of.

It seems like demands have been made for changes from every group except one. That’s what’s holding back progress.

The hated police’s presence is keeping every neighborhood safe at an equal amount. Without them everyone’s belongings would be taken every night and total anarchy would be the reality.

A few evil cops doesn’t cancel out their protection for all of us.

Originally Posted by bu2

And they were going to let him go if he didn't fall asleep again.

Exactly

[markjames68]

A good read. And scary.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/opini...JyrVKT50lo9YN/


https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/...x7pn4icnYM5LO/

And now the protestors are demanding Natalie White’s release...and the Brooks family attorneys had this to say...

“Attorneys for Brooks’ family, L. Chris Stewart and Justin Miller, released a statement after White’s arrest: “We are unaware of any connection between the Natalie White that was arrested (Tuesday) for arson and the Natalie White mentioned by Rayshard Brooks in the bodycam video. The only person who could answer questions regarding any connection they may have had is Natalie White.”

Because everyone out there is named Natalie White? What a joke.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by CleverOne

You keep saying reasonable cause but it wasnt. I cant keep repeating myself and you have'nt addressed what I said about what was clear in the video.
Why was it necessary even after he was shot did Rolfe had to kick Brooks and was heard saying "I got him".

Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape -and- the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

The first problem is he assaulted a cop, and stole a weapon. Fortunately not a handgun. That alone gave them reason to believe he posed significant threat to themselves in operation of apprehending him as he was in possession of a weapon. A taser would have been more than enough to have ceased their
means of apprehending him had he been successful at deploying it. His frame of mind was questionable at best meaning he could have also posed threat to other bystanders.

You're looking at this way to deep at and a personal level. For you all you see are the events leading to and following the shooting with a bias that these men were hunting Brooks, but for these cops, this was just another Tuesday. He most likely kicked him to see if he would respond. Keep in mind the guy stole their weapon they wouldn't exactly be at ease over that. Getting down there to apprehend him and it turned out they missed and he struggled again or obtained another weapon. He simply stated it to note that he was down and there was no longer a need to carry out any defensive or offensive operations.

[CleverOne]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

The first problem is he assaulted a cop, and stole a weapon. Fortunately not a handgun. That alone gave them reason to believe he posed significant threat to themselves in operation of apprehending him as he was in possession of a weapon. A taser would have been more than enough to have ceased their
means of apprehending him had he been successful at deploying it. His frame of mind was questionable at best meaning he could have also posed threat to other bystanders.

You're looking at this way to deep at and a personal level. For you all you see are the events leading to and following the shooting with a bias that these men were hunting Brooks, but for these cops, this was just another Tuesday. He most likely kicked him to see if he would respond. Keep in mind the guy stole their weapon they wouldn't exactly be at ease over that. Getting down there to apprehend him and it turned out they missed and he struggled again or obtained another weapon. He simply stated it to note that he was down and there was no longer a need to carry out any defensive or offensive operations.

It is a personal matter in which police have to interact with the public. I guess all the witness that saw what happened are also biased?
So you agree that murder was appropriate? To say it wasnt murder of someone fleeing with a non lethal weapon and an Officer who KICKS a dying man while the other stands on his arm is totally fine with you because."hey what do you expect?They were mad because of adrenaline. I wonder if that could be a defense for Brooks? After all it was the adrenaline and not maybe the alcohol or fear of not seeing his kids as to why he fought to get away and run.

Or maybe as some have blatantly said he had a criminal past even though it wasnt a violent criminal past. I guess he deserved it.

That alone gave them reason to believe he posed significant threat to themselves in operation of apprehending him as he was in possession of a weapon. A taser would have been more than enough to have ceased their
means of apprehending him had he been successful at deploying it. His frame of mind was questionable at best meaning he could have also posed threat to other bystanders.

Hmmmmm... Ive never heard of "STRAY Taser" fire.Learn something new everyday!

He simply stated it to note that he was down and there was no longer a need to carry out any defensive or offensive operation

I could almost buy that if he had not also kicked a dying man he just shot!
And he was chasing him WITH a taser IN HIS HAND before the man even turned around he had already made the decision to use deadly force.

Yes in Georgia you can shoot a fleeing suspect with a few stipulations but THIS is an example of exactly what the problem is with policing.Not to mention when more laws and policies like that are are enacted and carried out . Its just another reason you have such distrust of police and why we are in such predicament to begin with.

[markjames68]

modcut
Well, she’s out. On 5x less bail than Brosnan.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/...MrOZL8I3TiqxJ/

[ronricks]

Originally Posted by CleverOne

It is a personal matter in which police have to interact with the public. I guess all the witness that saw what happened are also biased?
So you agree that murder was appropriate? To say it wasnt murder of someone fleeing with a non lethal weapon and an Officer who KICKS a dying man while the other stands on his arm is totally fine with you because."hey what do you expect?They were mad because of adrenaline. I wonder if that could be a defense for Brooks? After all it was the adrenaline and not maybe the alcohol or fear of not seeing his kids as to why he fought to get away and run.

Or maybe as some have blatantly said he had a criminal past even though it wasnt a violent criminal past. I guess he deserved it.


Hmmmmm... Ive never heard of "STRAY Taser" fire.Learn something new everyday!



I could almost buy that if he had not also kicked a dying man he just shot!
And he was chasing him WITH a taser IN HIS HAND before the man even turned around he had already made the decision to use deadly force.

Yes in Georgia you can shoot a fleeing suspect with a few stipulations but THIS is an example of exactly what the problem is with policing.Not to mention when more laws and policies like that are are enacted and carried out . Its just another reason you have such distrust of police and why we are in such predicament to begin with.

I don't hold his criminal past against him for this specific incident and for this incident it is irrelevant but knowing he had a previous DUI he knows what the drill is. Resisting arrest and assaulting officers and stealing weapons isn't how you go about it and that usually won't end well for any suspect. Had that been me I would be just as dead as he is being white, latino, or asian isn't going to matter.



The issue with the criminal history only destroys the fake media narrative that has been portrayed it isn't the first time and won't be the last. Rayshard Brooks is not a martyr. This incident also has nothing in common with what happened to George Floyd no matter how bad people want to try and deceive the public into thinking so.

[ronricks]

Originally Posted by markjames68

Well, she’s out. On 5x less bail than Brosnan.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/...MrOZL8I3TiqxJ/

Brosnan is really getting screwed here. All he did was try to assist in a lawful arrest and never pulled or touched his service weapon. Howard clearly was trying to get him to flip via bogus and manufactured charges and it didn't work. I don't expect Brosnan to even be charged but his reputation and career will be ruined and so will his bank account.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by ronricks

Brosnan is really getting screwed here. All he did was try to assist in a lawful arrest and never pulled or touched his service weapon. Howard clearly was trying to get him to flip via bogus and manufactured charges and it didn't work. I don't expect Brosnan to even be charged but his reputation and career will be ruined and so will his bank account.

Royally screwed. At no time was he disrespectful to Brooks during early questioning, he was just doing his job.

Let’s see if he gets freebies like Brooks’ widow did. Unlikely. Hopefully there will at least be a GFM page set up for him though to cover legal and miscellaneous fees.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by markjames68

Let’s see if he gets freebies like Brooks’ widow did.

What did they give her?

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by arjay57

What did they give her?

https://www.tmz.com/2020/06/19/raysh...-tuition-kids/

Not knocking this, as it's a nice gesture. I'm sure her lawyers will be filing a wrongful death lawsuit and there will be a more substantial payday coming.