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

[okfine]

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.

I want to thank Sgt. Hernandez of VPD for taking my keys and calling a cab on more than one occasion.
He probably saved my life in more ways than one.

 

[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?

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



No. He should have done his job and or called for help doing his job.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

" They likely were taking him to jail to sleep and get sober. "

More likely they whispered to him that they were going to take him somewhere quiet and beat his ass.

 

[BlueGin]

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

After watching all the videos several times - I strongly disagree! There was no need to shoot him twice in the back as he ran away. The cops already had possession of his car, keys, and driver's license. The cops could have easily deescalated the situation and rounded him up later. The one cop seemed reasonable - but the killer cop was an asshole.

They cannot allow a violent criminal to get away with a police taser.

Violent criminal? That's sadly humorous.

Look up his record. He has a history of child abuse.

 

[irosie91]

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.

your response, butterfly----makes no sense. You are actually saying that criminals have a RIGHT to flee
arrest. He was, at least, according to you, guilty
of driving drunk. Getting back to shooting in the back-----you would have to support a law that making
it a crime to shoot at ANY fleeing criminal since the
gun fire might kill him and he does not pose a threat to the shooting cop-----but might to other citizens (only might---it's no enough)

 

[okfine]

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

After watching all the videos several times - I strongly disagree! There was no need to shoot him twice in the back as he ran away. The cops already had possession of his car, keys, and driver's license. The cops could have easily deescalated the situation and rounded him up later. The one cop seemed reasonable - but the killer cop was an asshole.

They cannot allow a violent criminal to get away with a police taser.

Violent criminal? That's sadly humorous.

Look up his record. He has a history of child abuse.

So do some cops. Wife beaters as well.

 

[easyt65]

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

Enough of the fantasy, false narrative you are pulling out your ass to attempt to defend Brooks criminal actions, Ms. Cleo -


POST THE LINK TO THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS POLICEMAN IS DIRTY - A CRIMINAL.....OR BE EXPOSED AS A RACE BAITER AND A LIAR.....

TICK TOCK.....

 

[Blues Man]

What threat was he to the cop when he was shot in the back?

Brooks resisted arrest, assaulted a police officer, then shot at a police officer with a stun gun he had stolen from the police officer.

How many police officers have been shot, beaten, injured, ambushed, run over, and killed since these 'protests' started?

Brooks' actions go far beyond 'disrespecting' the police. When someone demonstrates the willingness to assault and shoot a policeman he is not only a threat to the police but to the community as well.

Respect goes 2 ways. Want to be respected by the police, then start respecting the police.


'Don't want none? Then don't start none.' -- Don't want to get shot? Don't resist arrest, don't assault a policeman, don't try to shoot a policeman.

It's not rocket-science, and people of all color are smarter than Abrams / Abrams thinks they are - Brooks was not 'murdered' for sleeping in a fast food parking lot.

This had nothing to do with any protests.

It has to do with the use of deadly force and when deadly force is justified.

So tell me at the time the cop shot a man running away from him was that cop in any danger?

Absolutely. Just 1 second prior to that the cop has incapacitating taser barbs fly by his head from his own weapon. This guy needed to be put down immediately.

Good shoot.

Not at all.

You can see how wide the taser shot went on the video.

The fact is the cops were in absolutely no danger after Brooks dropped the taser and ran.

 

[Blues Man]

excuse me folks -----is it legal to shoot tasers
at people?

Brooks was no longer a danger to the cops after he dropped the taser and ran

This is not a difficult concept to grasp for anyone with even average intelligence

 

[Blues Man]

" Respect goes 2 ways. Want to be respected by the police, then start respecting the police."

Youre mistaken. As employees of the tax payers respect is a one way street. Police must respect the community they are policing not the other way around. The police only exist at the request of the people. Get your shit straight.

See, that's that new Liberal Progressive Democrat Party Bullshit they are teaching in schools and colleges now, what they are filling childrens' heads who only have 1 daddy, children whose parents the Government is attempting to replace as the ones who raise our kids today.

Dude, you aren't 'ENTITLED' to anything, especially RESPECT. You have to EARN that shit.

You remind me of the skinny little thug in Baltimore wearing a mask and throwing rocks at the police....when suddenly...on LIVE NATION-WIDE TV....got his ass cut by his momma who saw him on TV, came down to the protest, and told him to get his butt home 'NOW'!

I bet she reminded him that's not how she raised him, how she taught him to respect elders and authority...and to respect his momma!

LOL! Maybe your momma didn't whup that ass enough and teach you the same thing and how you have to EARN respect in this world.

" Dude, you aren't 'ENTITLED' to anything, especially RESPECT. You have to EARN that shit. "

Next time you tell me to respect the cops you remember that.

The policemen, as shown by the body cam footage, were professions and courteous to Brooks at the start, 'Entitlement'.

The policemen who asked for Barry's professor buddy's ID were courteous and doing their job until the good professor decided to let that racist chip on his shoulder override his mind...

But go ahead and talk shit - you already exposed who you are, Entitlement - you can shit on a cop and he has to be nice to you.

Bwuhahahaha......try that....please.....I will take pleasure in watching that on headline news.

all of that is irrelevant.

The point of the matter is that the cops shot a man in the back who was running away and therefore no longer a threat to their safety

 

[Blues Man]

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.

it was a bad shoot the second Brooks was unarmed and running away.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Of course it was.

When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.

 

[easyt65]

More likely they whispered to him that they were going to take him somewhere quiet and beat his ass.

Tell us all about it, Ms. Cleo....





.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

As has been stated many times by legal experts: a taser is not considered a lethal weapon.

Than why do dems want to ban them?
Do they want more lead filled idiots?
Now you're going to ask for a link even though its been all over the internet.

Yawn....

Maybe because they are sometimes overused - like batons, pepper spray, etc. Also, apparently they aren't good when used on someone with a heart condition. Also not good on schoolchildren.

So worse than a few rounds in the chest.....got it.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

your response, butterfly----makes no sense. You are actually saying that criminals have a RIGHT to flee
arrest. He was, at least, according to you, guilty
of driving drunk. Getting back to shooting in the back-----you would have to support a law that making
it a crime to shoot at ANY fleeing criminal since the
gun fire might kill him and he does not pose a threat to the shooting cop-----but might to other citizens (only might---it's no enough)

No, I'm saying that he should be charged with fleeing police when then arrest him, and since they had his car, his keys, and they knew where he lived, would be after he sobered up. He should not be shot in the back and killed.

Police should not be shooting ANYONE in a public space. There have been numerous instances of children, and other innocent bystanders being shot, many killed, by police shooting at fleeing suspects in public spaces. That's what tasers were supposed to be for. To take down fleeing suspects without shooting them, and without endangering the public.

Yes, if an unarmed suspect is fleeing police and they can't take him down on foot, and the choice is shooting into a crowded space and letting his escape, let him go. The job of the police is to "serve and protect". Shooting into a crowd does neither.

 

[BigTy87]

He is going to get charged with Voluntary Manslaughter. May even be convicted based on how Georgia defines it. Basically it defines it as killing someone in the "heat of the moment".

And all Police Officers should immediately resign and let the animals of the inner city run their own pathetic and crime infested zoo.

 

[Dragonlady]

He is going to get charged with Voluntary Manslaughter. May even be convicted based on how Georgia defines it. Basically it defines it as killing someone in the "heat of the moment".

And all Police Officers should immediately resign and let the animals of the inner city run their own pathetic and crime infested zoo.

The "animals of the inner city zoo" are the police who are brutalizing and killing the citizens.

 

[irosie91]

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.

your response, butterfly----makes no sense. You are actually saying that criminals have a RIGHT to flee
arrest. He was, at least, according to you, guilty
of driving drunk. Getting back to shooting in the back-----you would have to support a law that making
it a crime to shoot at ANY fleeing criminal since the
gun fire might kill him and he does not pose a threat to the shooting cop-----but might to other citizens (only might---it's no enough)

No, I'm saying that he should be charged with fleeing police when then arrest him, and since they had his car, his keys, and they knew where he lived, would be after he sobered up. He should not be shot in the back and killed.

Police should not be shooting ANYONE in a public space. There have been numerous instances of children, and other innocent bystanders being shot, many killed, by police shooting at fleeing suspects in public spaces. That's what tasers were supposed to be for. To take down fleeing suspects without shooting them, and without endangering the public.

Yes, if an unarmed suspect is fleeing police and they can't take him down on foot, and the choice is shooting into a crowded space and letting his escape, let him go. The job of the police is to "serve and protect". Shooting into a crowd does neither.

I looked at the videos and did not see a CROWD. I am more than fully aware of the issue of stray bullets.
I am also aware of the danger of criminals ON THE LAM. Your concept of----"it will just be a matter of
knocking on his door in the morning...." is very naive.
Have you ever interacted with criminals?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

And if Brooks was shot during the scuffle I would agree.

He was shot in the back and at that point he was not a threat to either cop's safety.

Nothing that happened before or might happen after is relevant.

AT THE TIME HE WAS SHOT Brooks was not a threat.

Any self defense claim by a civilian that a guy was shot in the back while he was running away from you would not stand in court. Why should the cops be held to a lesser standard than a civilian?

Shouldn't they be held to a higher standing?

 

[Blues Man]

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?

for one he could not have been killed with a Taser.

And what he should have done since he already had Brooks's name and adress was call for back up and go arrest Brooks at his house