Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

[Asclepias]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

The Policeman doesn't actually know if it was a taser or a gun

Actually he did. He even said it twice on the video.

"he got my fucking taser"

 

[Meathead]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public the minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

You cannot predict the future.

And I'm not disagreeing that he should have just complied.

The fact is the cop shot an unarmed man in the back.

That is never OK

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

 

[Blues Man]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

 

[Vastator]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

Thats a nice fairy tale, but... He was running away for a reason. He had just violated parole, and demonstrated a willingness to use violence against the police. Letting h I m get away, and secure better weapons, and a more defensible position would have been dereliction of duty. And there's no telling if the perp wouldn't have escalated the situation to a hostage situation. It was a just shoot.

 

[Vastator]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

Actually in many states LEO are authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing felon.

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

Thats a nice fairy tale, but... He was running away for a reason. He had just violated parole, and demonstrated a willingness to use violence against the police. Letting h I m get away, and secure better weapons, and a more defensible position would have been dereliction of duty. And there's no telling if the perp wouldn't have escalated the situation to a hostage situation. It was a just shoot.

It doesn't matter. All that matter is that he was no longer a threat to either officer's safety at the time he was shot.

This is not a difficult concept.

If I as a civilian shot a guy in the back as he was running away from me there is no way in hell a claim of self defense would stand. Why should cops be held to a lesser standing than a civilian?

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

Actually in many states LEO are authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing felon.

And and even though that is true many departments policies are different.

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

The law gives police officers latitude to use deadly force when they feel physically endangered, but there's far less legal flexibility when it comes to opening fire at fleeing individuals. Here's a look at legal issues raised by Saturday's police shooting in South Carolina.

www.pbs.org

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?


Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

was there any reason to think Brooks while unarmed and running away was a danger to anyone else in the community? He certainly was no longer a danger to the cops.

 

[Vastator]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

Thats a nice fairy tale, but... He was running away for a reason. He had just violated parole, and demonstrated a willingness to use violence against the police. Letting h I m get away, and secure better weapons, and a more defensible position would have been dereliction of duty. And there's no telling if the perp wouldn't have escalated the situation to a hostage situation. It was a just shoot.

It doesn't matter. All that matter is that he was no longer a threat to either officer's safety at the time he was shot.

This is not a difficult concept.

If I as a civilian shot a guy in the back as he was running away from me there is no way in hell a claim of self defense would stand. Why should cops be held to a lesser standing than a civilian?

They had all the justification needed.

 

[Meathead]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

Thats a nice fairy tale, but... He was running away for a reason. He had just violated parole, and demonstrated a willingness to use violence against the police. Letting h I m get away, and secure better weapons, and a more defensible position would have been dereliction of duty. And there's no telling if the perp wouldn't have escalated the situation to a hostage situation. It was a just shoot.

It doesn't matter. All that matter is that he was no longer a threat to either officer's safety at the time he was shot.

This is not a difficult concept.

If I as a civilian shot a guy in the back as he was running away from me there is no way in hell a claim of self defense would stand. Why should cops be held to a lesser standing than a civilian?

They had all the justification needed.

No they didn't.

I would have no justificsation to shoot Brooks in self defense in that scenario so why should the cop be held to a lower standard than a civilian?

 

[Blues Man]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

no he did not.

The cop dropped his Taser after Brroks shot the taser he took ( and missed by a mile) the cop then dropped his taser pulled his weapon and shot Brooks in the back as he was running away

 

[Meathead]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

no he did not.

The cop dropped his Taser after Brroks shot the taser he took ( and missed by a mile) the cop then dropped his taser pulled his weapon and shot Brooks in the back as he was running away

Sure, and Big Mike had his hands up and shouted don't shoot. Idiots will believe anything.

 

[Vastator]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

Actually in many states LEO are authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing felon.

And and even though that is true many departments policies are different.

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

The law gives police officers latitude to use deadly force when they feel physically endangered, but there's far less legal flexibility when it comes to opening fire at fleeing individuals. Here's a look at legal issues raised by Saturday's police shooting in South Carolina.

www.pbs.org

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?


Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

was there any reason to think Brooks while unarmed and running away was a danger to anyone else in the community? He certainly was no longer a danger to the cops.

Yes. His willingness to use violence against armed police to avoid capture demonstrates an even higher risk to the general public.

 

[Blues Man]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

no he did not.

The cop dropped his Taser after Brroks shot the taser he took ( and missed by a mile) the cop then dropped his taser pulled his weapon and shot Brooks in the back as he was running away

Sure, and Big Mike had his hands up and shouted don't shoot. Idiots will believe anything.

Watch the video.

 

[Meathead]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

no he did not.

The cop dropped his Taser after Brroks shot the taser he took ( and missed by a mile) the cop then dropped his taser pulled his weapon and shot Brooks in the back as he was running away

Sure, and Big Mike had his hands up and shouted don't shoot. Idiots will believe anything.

Watch the video.

I did. The thug fought the cops, took the taser and fired first, not the cop.

 

[Blues Man]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

Actually in many states LEO are authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing felon.

And and even though that is true many departments policies are different.

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

The law gives police officers latitude to use deadly force when they feel physically endangered, but there's far less legal flexibility when it comes to opening fire at fleeing individuals. Here's a look at legal issues raised by Saturday's police shooting in South Carolina.

www.pbs.org

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?


Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

was there any reason to think Brooks while unarmed and running away was a danger to anyone else in the community? He certainly was no longer a danger to the cops.

Yes. His willingness to use violence against armed police to avoid capture demonstrates an even higher risk to the general public.

No it doesn't.

That's just an excuse to shoot an unarmed man in the back. And once again it's an excuse that wouldn't work for a civilian and the cops should not be held to a lower standard than civilians but rather a higher one

 

[Blues Man]

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting
The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.​

Don’t Rush To Judgment On The Atlanta Shooting

The death of Rayshard Brooks is a tragedy, but it is not the open and shut case that George Floyd killing was.

thefederalist.com

JUNE 15, 2020 ~~ By David Marcus
The death of Rayshard Brooks at the hands of Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe is a tragedy. Brooks was discovered by police asleep behind the wheel at a Wendy’s drive through. After apparently failing a field sobriety test, officers attempted to cuff Brooks, who resisted, stole an officer’s Taser and attempted to flee while pointing and seeming to fire the Taser at Rolfe. It is a sad story of a situation that got badly out of hand, but the rush to judgment against Rolfe by many in the media is misguided.
Over Saturday night as protesters burned down the Wendy’s in question, outlets like CNN were painting the police in the worst possible light, attempting clearly to link the shooting to the outrage over the killing of George Floyd. Sometimes this took the form of straight up lying, such as CNN legal analyst Areva Martin saying Brooks was unarmed.
~~Snip~~
“We now have yet another death of an unarmed African American man,” Martin says. It’s a bizarre untruth especially from a legal analyst. On Sunday another CNN guest would say that Brooks was “compliant” with police even though he clearly refuses to be handcuffed and assaults the officers before stealing the Taser.
But even those on the left who are not telling flat out lies are misrepresenting the incident in almost every way they can to poison the public’s views of the police action. “He was running away,” they say, “Tasers aren’t lethal,” they go on. What gets short if any shrift at all is that Brooks was firing a weapon at police that could incapacitate them, leaving them at Brooks’ mercy.
Police are in some sense like NFL refs; they are expected to make a decision in a split second that we can then scrutinize with endless slow motion replays. It is essentially an impossible ask and no replay booth can bring back a lost life. What makes the Brooks and Floyd killings so entirely different is time itself.
As Derek Chauvin drove his knee into George Floyd’s neck, a nearly nine-minute eternity occurred, during which time any of the officers should have saved Floyd’s life. The shooting in Atlanta could not be more different. A suspect attacks, steals a weapon, runs while aiming and possibly shooting it all in a matter of seconds. The incident is over almost before it starts.
~~Snip~~
It’s pretty simple. If the police stop you just do what they say. If mistakes are made; complain about it later. The police don’t know who you are or what you are capable of doing. This does not give them a free pass when people resist, but it does put them in a dangerous and difficult situation that often leads to harm. Not only is obeying the police lawfully required, it is also the best way to keep everyone safe.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770 it was John Adams who defended the British soldiers who had fired on the angry crowd of patriots. The soldiers probably could have handled the situation better, leading to less loss of life, but Adams understood that was not the standard. He understood that the law gives those entrusted with keeping order, especially through violence, a lot of latitude on the use of force.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. It was a lesson for our nascent nation that taught us the value of rule of law, even when it protected the very powers the founders would soon be at war against. That is to say, no matter the righteous passions of protesters demanding police accountability, Garrett Rolfe must be tried based on the law, not based on the societal moment.
The fact of the matter is that if you are in a dark parking lot, you resist arrest, steal a cop’s Taser, point it at him and fire, there is a very good likelihood you will be shot. This is not the George Floyd case and a rush to judgment will only inflame, not soothe the mood of our angry country.


Comment:
First, nothing is “open and shut” about Floyd’s death.
This is another example of another black citizen FIGHTING the cops....and then ending badly....the lesson is NOT to fight the cops, don't run either....it really is that simple.
The color of a man's skin is not what causes bad behavior.
A culture that glorifies crime and Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftist politicians who encourage government dependence is. Plenty of people of all shades of color fall into this category.
Hate the behavior, not the people.
On the other hand why were the policemen not backed up by other LEO's? Is the city of Atlanta that understaffed that they send only two officers to a call?
We should wait until the full autopsy and investigation is completed to come to a conclusion.
In the Floyd case, Baden did the people no good when he claimed that George was asphyxiated when there were no petechiae found as in typical asphyxia or strangling. Whereas there were lethal drugs were found like Methamphetamine, Fentanyl.
What will the toxicology of Raycahrd Brooks show?

The only thing is that a taser can only be fired one time and has to have a new cartridge installed to be able to fire again. So even if he did hit one cop he could not have incapacitated the other.

But the cop was not incapacitated because the Taser shot by Brooks didn't come anywhere near hitting the cop.

After he fired the Taser Brooks dropped it and ran and at that point he no longer posed any threat to either cop.

So when he was shot in the back twice it was done in the absence of any further threat to either cop.

Cops are not punching bags.

Irrelevant.

The cops were no longer in any physical danger when they shot Brooks in the back.

The cop shot immediately when the thug turned half-way around and fired the taser. Cops are not target practice for tasers either.

no he did not.

The cop dropped his Taser after Brroks shot the taser he took ( and missed by a mile) the cop then dropped his taser pulled his weapon and shot Brooks in the back as he was running away

Sure, and Big Mike had his hands up and shouted don't shoot. Idiots will believe anything.

Watch the video.

I did. The thug fired first, not the cop.

Fired a NONLETHAL taser and missed by a mile. He was no longer a threat after that.

 

[Vastator]

Some stupid Congressional idiot claimed he was harming no one by being passed out at a drive thru and should have been left alone. Excusing his driving there drunk, and the possibility that he would have continued driving if he didn't pass out.
He was a hazard that could have killed innocent folks on the road. Damn insanity.
I have no sympathy for the fool.

A grown up takes responsibility when they are in the wrong and caught. A man child puts up a fight and tries to run.

I'm not excusing his actions at all.

But when he was shot in the back as he was running away Brooks posed no threat to either cop.

They had his name and address and could have simply gone to his house and arrested him.

Brooks was a threat to the public th ed minute he drove drunk.
He turns and fires the tazer.
He would have just put up a fight at his house.
He is the idiot at fault here. He could simply have manned up and took his arrest and punishment like 99% of adults do when arrested for DUI.

He wasn't driving at the time he was shot in the back.

He was running.

Since the cops had his car, his name and his address they should have just called for some back up and gone to Brook's house to arrest him instead of shooting him in the back

How many guns did the guy have at home?

Don't know don't care as it is irrelevant.

No one can know the future.

You can't shoot a person in the back because they might maybe some time in the future commit a crime.

This is not a difficult concept to understand

Actually in many states LEO are authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing felon.

And and even though that is true many departments policies are different.

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

The law gives police officers latitude to use deadly force when they feel physically endangered, but there's far less legal flexibility when it comes to opening fire at fleeing individuals. Here's a look at legal issues raised by Saturday's police shooting in South Carolina.

www.pbs.org

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?


Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

was there any reason to think Brooks while unarmed and running away was a danger to anyone else in the community? He certainly was no longer a danger to the cops.

Yes. His willingness to use violence against armed police to avoid capture demonstrates an even higher risk to the general public.

No it doesn't.

That's just an excuse to shoot an unarmed man in the back. And once again it's an excuse that wouldn't work for a civilian and the cops should not be held to a lower standard than civilians but rather a higher one

I'd be fine with it as a juror.