Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sad thing is the POS D.A. in Atlanta is he is expecting to file charges by Wednesday. In this kind of environment that cop won't get a fair trial. Literally using any device that puts out over 20k volts of electricity is considered a lethal weapon in Georgia and deadly force can be used which is what happened after he fired the taser at the cops.There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed the cop's taser and punched the cop in the face.
Did anyone here ever think that punching a cop in the face works result in a low chance of being killed by that cop?
People are not supposed to attack cops.
If I'm a cop and a man is trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.
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.
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.
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.
There was no self defense. He was running.Bullshit. Fighting the police doesnt give them the right to murder you. Talking to you is like talking to a retarded mason jar..It doesn't until you fight with the police. Once you initiate contact you've opened the door to many different scenarios.Who told you that or is that just your opinion?I hope the one that got fired walks, and does so with a couple million Atlanta tax dollars.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.
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
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
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.
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.
1. People have die after being Tased by police....so you can't say he would not have.for one he could not have been killed with a Taser.
The second Brooke's fought with the officers they were in mortal danger. None of your feelings will change that.No one is disputing that.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 himAt 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?Only if they resist to the point that its deadly like I pointed out earlier.
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, 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
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.
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?
1. People have die after being Tased by police....so you can't say he would not have.for one he could not have been killed with a Taser.
2. He could have incapacitated the officer, giving him the ability to take the officer's side arm.
He had already resisted arrest, assaulted the officer, and just attempted to stun him - honestly no telling what he would havce done had he stunned him unconscious.
The second Brooke's fought with the officers they were in mortal danger. None of your feelings will change that.No one is disputing that.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 himAt 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?Only if they resist to the point that its deadly like I pointed out earlier.
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, 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
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.
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?
the cop is charged with protecting society----not himself. Your comment is silly. IMO a grown man
who hits a cop and steals his taser is a DANGER TO SOCIETY
Your guess is as good as mine." They likely were taking him to jail to sleep and get sober. "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.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....Youre whole argument is built on a if
" If successful, Brooks would have .."
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.
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.Who said he wasn't besides you?He was not shot in the back
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.
More likely they whispered to him that they were going to take him somewhere quiet and beat his ass.
And if he kills a kid or an elderly person with the tazer then the cop is vilified. Why did he resist arrest?Of course it was.My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.Now youre 0-465Eh? He was drunk?Yes he was stupid.He was not shot in the back
" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "
He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.
What I wanted to post.
When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.
You opinion doesnt mean shit though. Thats why the ex-cop was fired and will soon be facing murder charges.The second Brooke's fought with the officers they were in mortal danger. None of your feelings will change that.No one is disputing that.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 himAt 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?Only if they resist to the point that its deadly like I pointed out earlier.
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, 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
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.
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?
the cop is charged with protecting society----not himself. Your comment is silly. IMO a grown man
who hits a cop and steals his taser is a DANGER TO SOCIETY
He was he going to kill a kid or an elderly person with a non working dropped taser? For that matter what makes you think he would mess with anyone?And if he kills a kid or an elderly person with the tazer then the cop is vilified. Why did he resist arrest?Of course it was.My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.Now youre 0-465Eh? He was drunk?Yes he was stupid.He was not shot in the back
" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "
He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.
What I wanted to post.
When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.
And if he kills a kid or an elderly person with the tazer then the cop is vilified. Why did he resist arrest?Of course it was.My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.Now youre 0-465Eh? He was drunk?Yes he was stupid.He was not shot in the back
" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "
He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.
What I wanted to post.
When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.
You opinion doesnt mean shit though. Thats why the ex-cop was fired and will soon be facing murder charges.The second Brooke's fought with the officers they were in mortal danger. None of your feelings will change that.No one is disputing that.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 himAt 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?Only if they resist to the point that its deadly like I pointed out earlier.
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, 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
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.
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?
the cop is charged with protecting society----not himself. Your comment is silly. IMO a grown man
who hits a cop and steals his taser is a DANGER TO SOCIETY
Malfunctioning not non working. It could have worked. So you may play what if games and I may not? Got it...He was he going to kill a kid or an elderly person with a non working dropped taser? For that matter what makes you think he would mess with anyone?And if he kills a kid or an elderly person with the tazer then the cop is vilified. Why did he resist arrest?Of course it was.My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.Now youre 0-465Eh? He was drunk?Yes he was stupid.He was not shot in the back
" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "
He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.
What I wanted to post.
When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.
He fired it? Did it not go off?And if he kills a kid or an elderly person with the tazer then the cop is vilified. Why did he resist arrest?Of course it was.My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.Now youre 0-465Eh? He was drunk?Yes he was stupid.He was not shot in the back
" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "
He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.
What I wanted to post.
When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.
He dropped the taser and ran.
Besides that a taser can only be discharged once and before it can be fired again a new cartridge must be installed. The thing was useless after he fired it and since he dropped itr before he ran there was no way he could have used it on anyone else
The second Brooke's fought with the officers they were in mortal danger. None of your feelings will change that.No one is disputing that.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 himAt 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?Only if they resist to the point that its deadly like I pointed out earlier.
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, 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
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.
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?
the cop is charged with protecting society----not himself. Your comment is silly. IMO a grown man
who hits a cop and steals his taser is a DANGER TO SOCIETY
Whats absurd are the fools that think its ok for the cops to shoot someone in the back when a civilian cant do it in defense of his home.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.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.
How deranged are you people? Really? It is flat out absurd.
Sure if he had any replacement cartridges.Malfunctioning not non working. It could have worked. So you may play what if games and I may not? Got it...He was he going to kill a kid or an elderly person with a non working dropped taser? For that matter what makes you think he would mess with anyone?And if he kills a kid or an elderly person with the tazer then the cop is vilified. Why did he resist arrest?Of course it was.My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.Now youre 0-465Eh? He was drunk?Yes he was stupid.He was not shot in the back
" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "
He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.
What I wanted to post.
When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.
Non working. He snatched a taser not refill cartridges. After it was fired it was useless. No if, ands, or buts about it.Malfunctioning not non working. It could have worked. So you may play what if games and I may not? Got it...He was he going to kill a kid or an elderly person with a non working dropped taser? For that matter what makes you think he would mess with anyone?And if he kills a kid or an elderly person with the tazer then the cop is vilified. Why did he resist arrest?Of course it was.My bad. Not what I meant. Meant to type another sentence and hit the reply by accident.He was shot in the back and you just claimed he wasnt loser. Back to the bench you go.He was drunk and you got lambasted yesterday. Relax, snowflake.Now youre 0-465Eh? He was drunk?Yes he was stupid.He was not shot in the back
" "His cause of death: gunshot wounds of the back," an investigator from the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "
He was not shot in the back. Well he was literally but that was not the intent.
What I wanted to post.
When you shoot at a man running away from you the intent is to shoot him in the back.
