I wouldn't vote to convict the cop who shot Rayshard Brooks of murder

[Asclepias]

He was not shot in the back

Yes he was stupid.

" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "

Eh? He was drunk?

Now youre 0-465

He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.

He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He was not shot in the back

Yes he was stupid.

" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "

Eh? He was drunk?

Now youre 0-465

He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.

He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.

My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.

He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.

What I wanted to post.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Only if they resist to the point that its deadly like I pointed out earlier.

At what point does the cop have to decide that wrestling around with somebody who is resisting arrest presents a danger to the cops life with the cops gone being within arms reach?

Every citizen must understand, and it is a standard by which every citizen is obligated to behave, that resisting arrest is a deadly proposition.

What is the point of resisting arrest? Answer me that one.

Gee maybe this Black man just saw another Black man in handcuffs being suffocated by 3 cops and didn't want the same thing to happen to him

Gee, why didn't he run away immediately?

Little story for ya my clueless friend. A few years back I ordered a pizza delivery. They said it would be at my house within 45 minutes. After about an hour in a half I was really tired and fell asleep on my couch. The idiot delivery guy called 911. Next thing I know I'm looking up at a cop and a bunch of paramedics.

This was very confusing as you might imagine. These guys were really nice, perhaps in part because I'm white. But it take me a few minutes to gather my wits. Mr Brooks may indeed been thinking of the Floyd murder and panicked when they attempted to cuff him. Nobody likes a knee on their neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

Cool story bro. Now take your white guilt elsewhere.

 

[okfine]

He was not shot in the back

Yes he was.

It was irrelevant because a second earlier he had turned and shot a taser at a cop but he was shot in the back. Twice.

He's trolling you, me and everyone else. Very easy to ignore.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He was not shot in the back

Yes he was.

It was irrelevant because a second earlier he had turned and shot a taser at a cop but he was shot in the back. Twice.

He's trolling you, me and everyone else. Very easy to ignore.

He he he....not in this case but usually yes.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

After seeing the film taken by the surveillance camera seemed to exonerate the police but ahhh, there might still be some wiggle room to hold the police responsible.

Now that the body cam video has been released there is no doubt that this was a good shoot. All a jury has to do is see that and it's all over. Those cops are going to walk.

I hope the one that got fired walks, and does so with a couple million Atlanta tax dollars.

He shot a man in the back - twice. It's really hard to convince people that your life is in danger from a man who is running away, or that they had no other way of arresting him when they had his car, his name, and his address.

He'll be convicted because this is a rage killing. He got pissed off and shot a man who was running away from him and posed no danger to him, in the back and killed him.

the man who resisted arrest and grabbed the cop's weapon is a DANGER TO SOCIETY

Who told you that or is that just your opinion?

I is old. I no longer work---HOWEVER during my working years, I dealt with both cops and robbers.
I know BOTH well.. A man who should be in cuffs----running around town with a weapon ----is LIKELY to be dangerous. When packed into a padded room and in restraints------they are fairly safe (only fairly)

Should every non-violent offender be in cuffs? Especially cuffed behind the back? Why is every suspect cuffed and placed in a physically vulnerable position? Freddy Gray, hands cuffed behind his back, was tossed in the back of a paddy wagon and bounced around back there, defenceless, until it killed him. Police may not have intended to kill him, but they sure as hell intended to hurt him.

there is probably a protocol for who should be cuffed.
I don't know what it is but it likely does not require
attempted murder

It doesn't until you fight with the police. Once you initiate contact you've opened the door to many different scenarios.

 

[Asclepias]

After seeing the film taken by the surveillance camera seemed to exonerate the police but ahhh, there might still be some wiggle room to hold the police responsible.

Now that the body cam video has been released there is no doubt that this was a good shoot. All a jury has to do is see that and it's all over. Those cops are going to walk.

I hope the one that got fired walks, and does so with a couple million Atlanta tax dollars.

He shot a man in the back - twice. It's really hard to convince people that your life is in danger from a man who is running away, or that they had no other way of arresting him when they had his car, his name, and his address.

He'll be convicted because this is a rage killing. He got pissed off and shot a man who was running away from him and posed no danger to him, in the back and killed him.

the man who resisted arrest and grabbed the cop's weapon is a DANGER TO SOCIETY

Who told you that or is that just your opinion?

I is old. I no longer work---HOWEVER during my working years, I dealt with both cops and robbers.
I know BOTH well.. A man who should be in cuffs----running around town with a weapon ----is LIKELY to be dangerous. When packed into a padded room and in restraints------they are fairly safe (only fairly)

Should every non-violent offender be in cuffs? Especially cuffed behind the back? Why is every suspect cuffed and placed in a physically vulnerable position? Freddy Gray, hands cuffed behind his back, was tossed in the back of a paddy wagon and bounced around back there, defenceless, until it killed him. Police may not have intended to kill him, but they sure as hell intended to hurt him.

there is probably a protocol for who should be cuffed.
I don't know what it is but it likely does not require
attempted murder

It doesn't until you fight with the police. Once you initiate contact you've opened the door to many different scenarios.

Bullshit. Fighting the police doesnt give them the right to murder you. Talking to you is like talking to a retarded mason jar..

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

Would have been.

I made the smart move and told the guy doing the psych eval to fuck off and left.

Whether you became a cop or not, you're still a racist white guy, so racist white guys are still your peers.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Only if they resist to the point that its deadly like I pointed out earlier.

At what point does the cop have to decide that wrestling around with somebody who is resisting arrest presents a danger to the cops life with the cops gone being within arms reach?

Every citizen must understand, and it is a standard by which every citizen is obligated to behave, that resisting arrest is a deadly proposition.

What is the point of resisting arrest? Answer me that one.


.

Gee maybe this Black man just saw another Black man in handcuffs being suffocated by 3 cops and didn't want the same thing to happen to him

Gee, why didn't he run away immediately?

He wasn't put in cuffs immediately.

DUH

Why was he put in cuffs at all? He wasn't violent, he wasn't resisting. The same thing with George Floyd. Why are the police cuffing every suspect behind the back before putting them in the cruiser?

In Mr. Floyd's case, they initially thought he was in medical distress. My St. John's Ambulance training says that if someone is in medical distress, you should keep them physically comfortable - i.e. laying flat, head slightly elevated, with airways as open as possible, monitoring their heart rate and breathing until help arrives.

he resisted arrest. You are quite a joke----could you please define "medical distress" ? how about
dysmenorrhea

No one is disputing that.

The point of contention here is that when the cop shot him in the back as he was running away that the shooter was not in any mortal danger whatsoever.

The second Brooke's fought with the officers they were in mortal danger. None of your feelings will change that.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

After seeing the film taken by the surveillance camera seemed to exonerate the police but ahhh, there might still be some wiggle room to hold the police responsible.

Now that the body cam video has been released there is no doubt that this was a good shoot. All a jury has to do is see that and it's all over. Those cops are going to walk.

I hope the one that got fired walks, and does so with a couple million Atlanta tax dollars.

He shot a man in the back - twice. It's really hard to convince people that your life is in danger from a man who is running away, or that they had no other way of arresting him when they had his car, his name, and his address.

He'll be convicted because this is a rage killing. He got pissed off and shot a man who was running away from him and posed no danger to him, in the back and killed him.

the man who resisted arrest and grabbed the cop's weapon is a DANGER TO SOCIETY

Who told you that or is that just your opinion?

I is old. I no longer work---HOWEVER during my working years, I dealt with both cops and robbers.
I know BOTH well.. A man who should be in cuffs----running around town with a weapon ----is LIKELY to be dangerous. When packed into a padded room and in restraints------they are fairly safe (only fairly)

Should every non-violent offender be in cuffs? Especially cuffed behind the back? Why is every suspect cuffed and placed in a physically vulnerable position? Freddy Gray, hands cuffed behind his back, was tossed in the back of a paddy wagon and bounced around back there, defenceless, until it killed him. Police may not have intended to kill him, but they sure as hell intended to hurt him.

there is probably a protocol for who should be cuffed.
I don't know what it is but it likely does not require
attempted murder

It doesn't until you fight with the police. Once you initiate contact you've opened the door to many different scenarios.

Bullshit. Fighting the police doesnt give them the right to murder you. Talking to you is like talking to a retarded mason jar..

Quite right, you never have a right to murder a person, but never every homicide is a murder, and yes police have the right to self defense , even including using deadly force in certain circumstances.

 

[okfine]

He was not shot in the back

Who said he wasn't besides you?

My point is the intent was not come in and kill him. It was not a dirty kill. Police were polite until he started resisting and turned violent.

As soon as his finger was on the trigger he had intent.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

After seeing the film taken by the surveillance camera seemed to exonerate the police but ahhh, there might still be some wiggle room to hold the police responsible.

Now that the body cam video has been released there is no doubt that this was a good shoot. All a jury has to do is see that and it's all over. Those cops are going to walk.

I hope the one that got fired walks, and does so with a couple million Atlanta tax dollars.

He shot a man in the back - twice. It's really hard to convince people that your life is in danger from a man who is running away, or that they had no other way of arresting him when they had his car, his name, and his address.

He'll be convicted because this is a rage killing. He got pissed off and shot a man who was running away from him and posed no danger to him, in the back and killed him.

the man who resisted arrest and grabbed the cop's weapon is a DANGER TO SOCIETY

Who told you that or is that just your opinion?

I is old. I no longer work---HOWEVER during my working years, I dealt with both cops and robbers.
I know BOTH well.. A man who should be in cuffs----running around town with a weapon ----is LIKELY to be dangerous. When packed into a padded room and in restraints------they are fairly safe (only fairly)

Should every non-violent offender be in cuffs? Especially cuffed behind the back? Why is every suspect cuffed and placed in a physically vulnerable position? Freddy Gray, hands cuffed behind his back, was tossed in the back of a paddy wagon and bounced around back there, defenceless, until it killed him. Police may not have intended to kill him, but they sure as hell intended to hurt him.

there is probably a protocol for who should be cuffed.
I don't know what it is but it likely does not require
attempted murder

It doesn't until you fight with the police. Once you initiate contact you've opened the door to many different scenarios.

Bullshit. Fighting the police doesnt give them the right to murder you. Talking to you is like talking to a retarded mason jar..

You're a fool. It's very entertaining.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

He was not shot in the back

Who said he wasn't besides you?

My point is the intent was not come in and kill him. It was not a dirty kill. Police were polite until he started resisting and turned violent.

As soon as his finger was on the trigger he had intent.

of course he did.

 

[Dragonlady]

Youre whole argument is built on a if
" If successful, Brooks would have .."

My argument is based on the FACTS. Your argument is based on your claim to know exactly what the policeman was THINKING, what he was FEELING....


View attachment 350618


MISS CLEO, I HAD NO IDEA DI' WAS YOU......

"Intent", is a key component of criminal law, is based entirely on what the accused was thinking.

He was not shot in the back

Who said he wasn't besides you?

My point is the intent was not come in and kill him. It was not a dirty kill. Police were polite until he started resisting and turned violent.

I just watched the police body cam video. Throughout the video, Mr. Brooks was police and reasonable with the police. Regardless of being pretty sheepish of being found passed out in the Wendy's parking lot, he was polite and reasonable. He pointed to his sister's house across the parking lot, and said he just lived over there. Couldn't he just leave his car there, give the cops the keys, and walk home? He was capable of walking.

The police didn't have to arrest him. In terms of community policing, he had not harmed anyone. He was not endangering anyone. They didn't have to cuff him like that. Did the cop whisper something in his ear to frighten him so badly that he started fighting and ran?

Last but not least, this event went on for over 45 minutes before Mr. Brooks was shot. A large crowd had gathered in the Wendy's parking lot. The officer fired multiple shots into a crowded public space, and not only killed the suspect, but endangered innocent bystanders as well.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He was not shot in the back

Who said he wasn't besides you?

My point is the intent was not come in and kill him. It was not a dirty kill. Police were polite until he started resisting and turned violent.

As soon as his finger was on the trigger he had intent.

It got there post the violent interaction. He didn't break police code.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Youre whole argument is built on a if
" If successful, Brooks would have .."

My argument is based on the FACTS. Your argument is based on your claim to know exactly what the policeman was THINKING, what he was FEELING....


View attachment 350618


MISS CLEO, I HAD NO IDEA DI' WAS YOU......

"Intent", is a key component of criminal law, is based entirely on what the accused was thinking.

He was not shot in the back

Who said he wasn't besides you?

My point is the intent was not come in and kill him. It was not a dirty kill. Police were polite until he started resisting and turned violent.

I just watched the police body cam video. Throughout the video, Mr. Brooks was police and reasonable with the police. Regardless of being pretty sheepish of being found passed out in the Wendy's parking lot, he was polite and reasonable. He pointed to his sister's house across the parking lot, and said he just lived over there. Couldn't he just leave his car there, give the cops the keys, and walk home? He was capable of walking.

The police didn't have to arrest him. In terms of community policing, he had not harmed anyone. He was not endangering anyone. They didn't have to cuff him like that. Did the cop whisper something in his ear to frighten him so badly that he started fighting and ran?

Last but not least, this event went on for over 45 minutes before Mr. Brooks was shot. A large crowd had gathered in the Wendy's parking lot. The officer fired multiple shots into a crowded public space, and not only killed the suspect, but endangered innocent bystanders as well.

Playing Monday morning QB again. Amazing. He stole a weapon from a police officer! They likely were taking him to jail to sleep and get sober.

 

[Asclepias]

Would have been.

I made the smart move and told the guy doing the psych eval to fuck off and left.

Whether you became a cop or not, you're still a racist white guy, so racist white guys are still your peers.

I'm not white and I dont work with racist white guys.

 

[Asclepias]

After seeing the film taken by the surveillance camera seemed to exonerate the police but ahhh, there might still be some wiggle room to hold the police responsible.

Now that the body cam video has been released there is no doubt that this was a good shoot. All a jury has to do is see that and it's all over. Those cops are going to walk.

I hope the one that got fired walks, and does so with a couple million Atlanta tax dollars.

He shot a man in the back - twice. It's really hard to convince people that your life is in danger from a man who is running away, or that they had no other way of arresting him when they had his car, his name, and his address.

He'll be convicted because this is a rage killing. He got pissed off and shot a man who was running away from him and posed no danger to him, in the back and killed him.

the man who resisted arrest and grabbed the cop's weapon is a DANGER TO SOCIETY

Who told you that or is that just your opinion?

I is old. I no longer work---HOWEVER during my working years, I dealt with both cops and robbers.
I know BOTH well.. A man who should be in cuffs----running around town with a weapon ----is LIKELY to be dangerous. When packed into a padded room and in restraints------they are fairly safe (only fairly)

Should every non-violent offender be in cuffs? Especially cuffed behind the back? Why is every suspect cuffed and placed in a physically vulnerable position? Freddy Gray, hands cuffed behind his back, was tossed in the back of a paddy wagon and bounced around back there, defenceless, until it killed him. Police may not have intended to kill him, but they sure as hell intended to hurt him.

there is probably a protocol for who should be cuffed.
I don't know what it is but it likely does not require
attempted murder

It doesn't until you fight with the police. Once you initiate contact you've opened the door to many different scenarios.

Bullshit. Fighting the police doesnt give them the right to murder you. Talking to you is like talking to a retarded mason jar..

Quite right, you never have a right to murder a person, but never every homicide is a murder, and yes police have the right to self defense , even including using deadly force in certain circumstances.

There was no self defense. He was running.

 

[easyt65]

As soon as his finger was on the trigger he had intent.

An intent to stop the criminal who illegally resisted arrest, who assaulted police officers, who stole a policeman's weapon, who attempted to shoot a police officer....

As explained earlier, anyone who attacks / attempts to shoot a police officer is a threat to the community.

Speaking of 'Intent', what do you think Brooks' 'intent' was when he aimed the stolen stun gun at the head of the officer he had already assaulted?


Should the officer just have been glad not to have been killed by Brooks and walked away?

 

[Asclepias]

As soon as his finger was on the trigger he had intent.

An intent to stop the criminal who illegally resisted arrest, who assaulted police officers, who stole a policeman's weapon, who attempted to shoot a police officer....

As explained earlier, anyone who attacks / attempts to shoot a police officer is a threat to the community.

Speaking of 'Intent', what do you think Brooks' 'intent' was when he aimed the stolen stun gun at the head of the officer he had already assaulted?


Should the officer just have been glad not to have been killed by Brooks and walked away?

" As explained earlier, anyone who attacks / attempts to shoot a police officer is a threat to the community. "

Bullshit. Attacking a crooked cop does not imply a person is a threat to the community. He is only a threat to that cop.