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

[irosie91]

As a cop you cant have a heat of the moment. Peoples lives are on the line. One of the reasons I never became a cop.

Yes, and as a dude getting arrested, you cannot start fighting with the cops and expect to live.

.

DUMBEST POST EVER!!!! NO ONE CAN KILL A PERSON JUST BECAUSE THEY STARTED TO FIGHT WITH THEM. RESISTING ARREST IS NOT A CAPITAL OFFENSE.

Creating a situation where the police officers life is in danger particularly the part where the officer is incapacitated and the criminal can grab his gun, is life-threatening, JUSTIFYING DEADLY FORCE!!!!!

You are all full of shit if you think there is no danger to a police officer when someone resist arrest like that.

.

Creating a situation where the police officer's life is in danger is not what happened in this case. The police officer's life was NEVER in danger. It was the police who were endangering lives, and the police who in fact, killed a man.

You seem to have take the position that any sort of aggression gives the police the right to use deadly force because they are "in danger". This is a fallacy. The law says that the force you use to defend yourself, cannot exceed the force of the threat. If someone punches you, you cannot shoot and kill them.

As for suspects trying to wrestle weapons away from police, that's the best argument I can think of for not sending out heavily armed cops on calls that don't involve violent crimes.

Let the court decide that not your or the cops.

EXACTLY!!!!

DO NOT RESIST ARREST!!!!

LET THE FUCKING COURTS DECIDE!!!!


It's like talking to a fucking brick wall.

.

You obviously misunderstood what you just quoted. I was speaking to someone else and telling them its not their job or the cops job to render a decision on guilt or innocence but nice try anyway.

And it is not the job of black people to render a judgment as the judge on the street and decide that they must resist arrest and get away.

Let the court decide.

That's what's happening. These guys are not letting the court decide, they're blaming the cops.

I have demonstrated to everyone this logical flaw that you're running around with.

Again, talking to a brick wall.

.

The cops shot a guy in the back. It was the cops who prevented the court from deciding the guilt or innocence of this man.

The way this has been presented to me is it the guy was running off with a weapon. I've heard new facts that he already fired that weapon. If that's the case and the cops shot him anyway, you have a good point.

Cops cannot let people run off a deadly weapons when that person has done so while resisting arrest. Far too many other people get hurt when that happens.

.

it was a Taser or in other words a nonlethal weapon that is only capable of firing one time. The taser had been fired and missed by a wide margin. The subject then dropped the taser and ran.

Tell me at what point was this cop ever in mortal danger?

I is a naive person-----do not own a taser. Can't they be recharged? The taser constituted a weapon in the hands of a fugging criminal who was so depraved that he resisted a lawful arrest

And you don't think the cop knew how is own Taser works?

When you think about it, it's a real possibility.

You really like to BULLSHIT-----the cop chased a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE who was also a felon At what point did he claim that his life was in danger?
Why do you INVENT?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You’re absolutely right. The detractors will comment that the suspect was shot in the back. I have no issue with that. He actively resisted and fought back. He got what he deserved.

Anatomically speaking, getting hit in the back is what would happen if you're running away and then turn and try to fire a weapon at people behind you.

Pity the cops didn't have the luxury of hindsight while sitting on a couch, sipping coffee, the way the people jumping to criticize them do.

That weapon was a Taser not a gun. It had one shot and that one shot missed the cop by a mile. The cop knew he didn't have any other weapons on him because they frisked him.

So at the time he was shot Brooks was no longer a threat to either cop.

The weapon was a Taser, not a gun, but could the cop tell that at the time? "They knew he didn't have any other weapons because they frisked him." Well, thank you for providing that huge ASSumption that proves you didn't watch the video, you just ran out to start spewing about what you "know" to be right and wrong.

Tell me where they frisked him; looked to me like they administered the breathalyzer, the cop reached for his arm, and that's when Captain Toe Tag started swinging.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

After watching you post many, many, TOO MANY times, I strongly expected you to disagree whether you watched the videos or not.

I'm sure YOU think "there was no need", based on your extensive training and experience as a cop dealing with violent drunks on the street . . . oh, no, wait, you actually have no real clue what the hell you're talking about.

What the hell does "already had possession of his car, keys, and driver's license" have to do with anything? What, if you have someone's ID, that stops 'em from shooting you with a Taser, does it?

"The cops should have just let him do whatever he wanted, and tried again later. How DARE they think he should have to cooperate?!" So you subscribe to the, "Stop, or I'll yell stop again! But you don't have to if you don't want to" school of policing, do you? And what if he takes the Taser he stole from the cop and uses it to rob a convenience store, or mug an old lady, or go home and abuse his wife in the meantime? For that matter, what if he'd actually managed to hit the cop he fired the Taser at, and once the cop was down, had taken his gun and shot someone? What if the weapon he fired at them when he turned hadn't been the stolen Taser, but a gun he'd had on him?

You continue to be a ignorant, agenda-driven sow. I won't tell you you shouldn't speak, but I will tell you that you should, just once in your life, try thinking before you do so.

That's just the point.

The cop knew that taser had only one shot in it. That shot missed the cop by a mile. The cop should have known because of his extensive training that Brooks had no possibility of firing that taser again.

It is because of their training that cops need to be held to a higher standard than civilians.

Here's a point for YOU: read my entire post before presuming to tell me "That's just the point", followed by ignoring large chunks of what I said.

Epic fail. Dismissed. Moving on to people who read, not just scroll down to where they can talk more.

I saw no reason to read any more of your little rant because I had all I needed to respond

Translation: "I knew what I wanted to say, and I'm just talking to myself anyway."

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed a 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 in trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

Shot him in the back after dropping his Taser. Back shooting cop is a low life POS.

took his taser, fired it at him, was shot the second he turned around.

All thing like this will do is encourage people to resist arrest.

Non-Leathal vs. Lethal. Makes it all good I suppose. Give me a break.

Which still begs the question, did the cops KNOW that was the stolen Taser he was pointing at them, rather than a gun he'd had on him? Should they have waited until someone got shot to find out? What if he'd incapacitated the cop with the Taser and then taken his gun?

The cops had frisked him before they tried to put the cuffs on him.

So yeah they knew he didn't have a gun or another taser on him and yeah they knew the taser he had belonged to one of the cops

Second assertion without evidence.

Please tell me where in the video - which I just KNOW you watched carefully prior to sallying forth to spew your "wisdom" - they frisked him.

You can move on to presenting your conclusions based on your ASSumption after you prove it, not before.

 

[irosie91]

Suspects NEVER take an officer's firearm, right?

Except the suspect in this case never took the cops gun. You cant kill someone for what they "coulda" did. Apples and oranges.

He DID IT-----he fled from police custody

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It was a Taser and the shot missed the cop by a mile.
The cops life was not in danger when he shot Brooks in the back

Resisting arrest.
Assaulting a policeman.
Stealing a police officer's weapon and attempting to use it on him.

At any point, had he not done any of these things, he would still be alive. Drunk, an idiot, or both - he bears partial responsibility for his death.

The policeman will be held accountable; however, as 'cop-haters' / liberals scream, loot, destroy property, ambush and kill cops, hold city blocks hostage demanding REFORM for the police, there must also be REFORM for the citizens as well.

Children are not born with an o not know 'hate'. 'Hate' is something taught. So is respect. Children must not be taught to HATE the police, to disrespect the police, that when approached or addressed by a policeman that their best recourse is to be rude, confrontational, refuse to answer questions / cooperate, resist arrest, assault the police, and / or try to steal their weapons.

Yes, the policeman made serious mistakes and he will pay for what he did. The man he shot also committed extremely serious mistakes / offenses - he paid for them with his life. He demonstrated the police are not the only ones at fault and not the only ones who must change.

I can't make this any simpler.

At the time he was shot Brooks posed no threat to either officer.

If he was shot while actually fighting with the cops this would be a different story. But he wasn't he was shot in the back while running away.

I'll ask you again.

If you as a civilian tried to claim self defense after shooting a person who was running away from you in the back, your claim of self defense would be thrown out and you would be charged with murder.

Why should a cop be held to a lower standard than a civilian?

Since cops are supposed to be highly trained to handle these situations shouldn't cops be held to a higher standard than civilians?

Not in Texas.


https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ;  and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-51.html


A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid;  and
(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.
(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force;  or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.
(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force;  or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.
(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force justified by Subsection (c) or (d).
(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service, and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws of this state or the United States.
(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it racist to point out that loving father Rayshard Brooks was charged with cruelty to children, false imprisonment, battery on family member, and much more? Why hasn't the media mentioned this?

Probably because its either not true and or has nothing to do with the shooting. Why do you ask?

~~~~~~
Then explain to us why a person named Rayshard Brooks was named in a fugitive warrant for his arrest from the State of Georgia? He was violating his probation. The charges as follows: False imprisonment, cruelty to children, Family violence and battery.
See:

Rayshard Brooks Full Story Emerges – ‘I’m on probation, and any violation will send me back to jail’…

The Conservador found this footage from Rayshard Brook’s youtube channel recorded May 24. Brooks admits he’s on probation, and any violation will send him back to jail. Th…

www.citizenfreepress.com

This fully explains why this felon resisted arrest, physically fought the police and ended up dying at the hands of the police.
This is just another case of a felon violating his probation and being caught.

Au contraire, my gullible fool. This is yet another case of a cop with a LONG history of excessive use of force, and complaints about excessive use of force, who is still allowed to carry a gun and police the public. It was announced that this office had at least a half dozen complaints of excessive force in the community.

Trump says it's just of few "bad apples". Any fool knows that if an apple is bad, you throw it out immediately because if left where it is, the rot will spread to the rest of the basket.

"This is yet another case of something I'm assuming is true but have seen no proof of."

Where are you getting this "LONG history of excessive use of force" from? "It was announced" by whom?

 

[irosie91]

there is no excessive force. ----it's a libel. There is
excessive lying. There is a reason that I know---I
cannot divulge

 

[yidnar]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed a 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 in trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

Shot him in the back after dropping his Taser. Back shooting cop is a low life POS.

Heat of the moment. Confusion due to being hit in the face. Shot in the back irrelevant.

As a cop you cant have a heat of the moment. Peoples lives are on the line. One of the reasons I never became a cop.

that and the fact that you are a pussy to boot .....and as far as your hatred of da white maynes laws you probably wont have to worry about them policing proactively in your neighborhood .... get ready for crime punk .

 

[basquebromance]

If we don’t get no justice, then they don’t get no peace!

NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE!

 

[yidnar]

You’re absolutely right. The detractors will comment that the suspect was shot in the back. I have no issue with that. He actively resisted and fought back. He got what he deserved.

Oh bullshit. If I slapped you does that mean you shoot and kill me?

if you slapped me you would be spending the rest of your life wiping your ass with a hook ...

 

[sakinago]

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.

He clearly punches both cops... assaulting an officer...anyone...anyone...bueller?

 

[Andylusion]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed a 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 in trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

Shot him in the back after dropping his Taser. Back shooting cop is a low life POS.

Honestly, you attack a police officer, or take a police officers weapon of any kind.... you just deserve to be flat out shot. Back, front, side, top, bottom.... you need shot. You are a garbage human being, that needs to be removed from society, for the good of society.

Even if you are running away and the cops were not hurt at all ?

No cops have to be held to a higher standard than that

No, I completely and totally disagree. You do not get to attack an officer ever, under any situation, unless the officer is trying to kill you.

If you are committing a crime, and are stopped, and he's not doing anything to harm you... and you attack an officer.... You deserve to be shot dead, on the spot.

And especially if you take an officers weapon.

If that criminal had shot the officer with the taser, and then taken his gun, and killed innocent people with it, you would be wondering why officers are not stopping criminals. What was he doing out there if he's going to let an criminal steal his gun, and kill innocent people with it?

No. Just no sorry. You do that, you should be shot. End of story. You are wrong.

 

[sakinago]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed a 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 in trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

Shot him in the back after dropping his Taser. Back shooting cop is a low life POS.

took his taser, fired it at him, was shot the second he turned around.

All thing like this will do is encourage people to resist arrest.

Its like a couple of police chiefs have said already. If a person runs either you get some exercise or you call for backup. Thats why the cop is going to get charged on Wed.

He wasn't running when the cop made the decision to shoot him.

Of course he was running. How did the cop shoot him in the back?

You can still run away and point behind you with a weapon, and get shot in the back. Getting shot in the back isn’t a good indicator of unjustified self defense. Say someone breaks into your house, they’re in you kitchen, you tell them you’re armed, Yada Yada...they duck behind the island and start blind firing, or even merely just aiming over the island. Because you’re trained in firearms you know there is a difference between cover and concealment. A kitchen island is the latter (unless it’s one of those new concrete ones that are the new rage) so you shoot through the island and kill them that way. Completely justified use of lethal force.

Like it or not, this was a legal use of force. As the law states now, you can’t aim a weapon at police. Coconuts kill like 300 people a year. We don’t think of them as lethal, we think of them as delicious and refreshing when they’re filled with rum. Twice as many people die in unarmed combat than are killed by rifles. People dying in street fights happens ALL THE TIME. Cops see it. ERs see it. The general public doesn’t because the news doesn’t show it. That’s just dying. 1000s receive some sort of permanent crippling physical damage or brain damage. I myself walked into a bathroom at a nightclub to a scene where TWO people had been beaten so bad, one received Terri Sciavo level brain damage, the other was in the hospital for months and lost an eye.

I understand the cop was probably not in any life threatening danger, but it easily could’ve went where he gets tased, goes limp, smashes his head on asphalt or a curb. Which is how almost all taser related deaths and serious injuries happen. Usually from the fall. 200lbs swan diving into concrete is not great for skulls. Whether it’s from getting knocked out, or tased.

The way I see it, it SHOULD be if it’s a legal civilian use of self-defense, then it should be a legal police use of lethal force/self-defense. In this situation, I think a civilian would be within their rights to shoot, when threatened with a taser. It’s a gray area for sure, but don’t aim tasers at people, or cops for that matter. Now the laws are heavily skewed against civilians in MOST states, and a couple have some screwy rules that are pretty loose. On the other hand, plenty of states say it’s ok for police to shoot if someone is just reaching. I don’t agree with that unless you know there’s a gun that they’re reaching for. Like Philando and the white kid in Nevada were 2 BS shootings. And civilians would 100% be convicted of murder in those cases. I’d like to see that changed.

 

[Kondor3]

...If that was true why did the union allow the POS to get fired?

Most unions are a ghostly shell of their former selves... did the guy's union have enough muscle to prevent his firing, if they wanted to?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If we don’t get no justice, then they don’t get no peace!

NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE! NO JUSTICE? NO PEACE!

Except when dealing with your woman.

Then, it's NO JUSTICE, NO PIECE! NO JUSTICE, NO PIECE! NO JUSTICE, NO PIECE!

 

[WTH_Progs?]

PROGS need to watch the full video, not the one their masters want them to see.

Apparently when a PROG is punched out and a weapon used on them, they respond with pretty please and fall to their knees for some head.

 

[WillowTree]

The cop has been fired buh bye. Shooting a guy in the back while he is running away for being asleep is simply dumb. Shameful.

He wasn’t shot for being asleep! Why are you libtards so stupid?

 

[WillowTree]

There are differences between the George Floyd case and the Brooks case.
The latter grabbed a 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 in trying to arrest takes my taser and punches me, it's on.
And I'm a Democrat.

Shot him in the back after dropping his Taser. Back shooting cop is a low life POS.

took his taser, fired it at him, was shot the second he turned around.

All thing like this will do is encourage people to resist arrest.

Non-Leathal vs. Lethal. Makes it all good I suppose. Give me a break.

Which still begs the question, did the cops KNOW that was the stolen Taser he was pointing at them, rather than a gun he'd had on him? Should they have waited until someone got shot to find out? What if he'd incapacitated the cop with the Taser and then taken his gun?

The cops had frisked him before they tried to put the cuffs on him.

So yeah they knew he didn't have a gun or another taser on him and yeah they knew the taser he had belonged to one of the cops

Second assertion without evidence.

Please tell me where in the video - which I just KNOW you watched carefully prior to sallying forth to spew your "wisdom" - they frisked him.

You can move on to presenting your conclusions based on your ASSumption after you prove it, not before.

Here’s the deal. He took the laser, shot the cop while on the run. Had he been lucky and brought the cop down then he would have easy access to the cop’s gun.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Irrelevant. Aiming an incapacitating weapon at a LEO and firing it is grounds for a lethal response.

Nope. Once that "weapon" discharged...the officer was no longer in danger. It is a one shot weapon and knew that

You can't just say nope. Because what do I say to what you said?

NOPE.