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

[airplanemechanic]

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.

Why would I need to explain anything to you that doesnt have anything to do with him getting shot in the back?

~~~~~~~
That's B.S. it has everything to do why he was shot. If he had complied with the police and NOT resisted arrest, he'd be alive and in jail today. That is pure logic. He violated his probation and refused to comply with the law. By his own actions he forfeited his life.

He was no longer a threat when he was shot in the back

The cops are not given authority to kill a person simply because he would not comply. No civilain could have shot a person in the back as he was running away and then claim their life was in danger. Why should a cop be able to?

Because the cop had tried to arrest him and he resisted violently. The average citizen wouldn't be trying to arrest him, just get away from him. Apples to lugnuts comparison.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

PROGS were just misled as usual. A shame we have to put up with this BS.

 

[airplanemechanic]

PROGS were just misled as usual. A shame we have to put up with this BS.

They're fucking looney tunes. They say shit like "well the guy missed so he wasn't a threat". WTF?? So the fucking cop can only shoot at a perp once the cop has been hit with the weapon that was violently stolen from him? Are these fucking morons really this fucking stupid?

 

[WTH_Progs?]

PROGS were just misled as usual. A shame we have to put up with this BS.

They're fucking looney tunes. They say shit like "well the guy missed so he wasn't a threat". WTF?? So the fucking cop can only shoot at a perp once the cop has been hit with the weapon that was violently stolen from him? Are these fucking morons really this fucking stupid?

I suppose it is like looney tunes, but I think we can get even closer. They're very similar young chilren, who make rules as they go so things are fair in their favor .

4:00 = AWSOME

 

[Andylusion]

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.

No one is excusing his actions.

But nothing he did was a capital crime.

He was shot in the back as he was running away. That is never a righteous shooting

You don't get to attack a police officer. That should be a capital crime.
You don't get to take an officers weapon from him. That should be a capital crime.
You don't get to shoot the officer with a weapon. That IS a capital crime.

Yes he did deserve to get shot. Justice was done. And dangerous blight on society was killed.

 

[Andylusion]

PROGS were just misled as usual. A shame we have to put up with this BS.

They're fucking looney tunes. They say shit like "well the guy missed so he wasn't a threat". WTF?? So the fucking cop can only shoot at a perp once the cop has been hit with the weapon that was violently stolen from him? Are these fucking morons really this fucking stupid?

LOL

I love it. So I can shoot at a lib-tard, and miss, and hey nothing should happen to me.

It's like if I was shooting at their daughter, if I missed, I would just look at them... hey can't touch me! I haven't shot her yet! You can't do jack! Sorry!

 

[Lesh]

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

But then I DIDN'T just say "nope" did I?

I pointed out that the taser had been fired and was at that point empty and that the officer knew that

 

[Lesh]

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.

Ignoring of course that there was another armed cop mere yards away

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Of course he could.

They had already frisked Brooks and knew he had no hidden weapons.

My god I could see it was a taser on the video
Do you really think the cop can't tell the difference between a taser and a handgun?

Rayshard Brooks: What happened before police shot him dead?

Video shows events preceding the killing of Rayshard Brooks, whose death has provoked protests.

www.bbc.com

At that point, the officers check whether Mr Books is armed and ask him to undertake a sobriety test

so the cops already checked him for weapons BEFORE they administered the breathalyzer and BEFORE they attempted to cuff Brooks.

Hence they knew Brooks had no other weapons on him.

 

[Blues Man]

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."

You're the one making shit up here not me.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

And as I have said countless time now, if Brooks had been shot during the struggle this would be a different story.

But AT THE TIME HE WAS SHOT, he was no longer a threat to either cop's safety.


So tell me if i as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

Arw you capable of forming a rational thought based on reality and facts and not your feelings?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

And as I have said countless time now, if Brooks had been shot during the struggle this would be a different story.

But AT THE TIME HE WAS SHOT, he was no longer a threat to either cop's safety.


So tell me if i as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Immanent danger and threat do not come in and out of play based on your feelings. The second Crooks went for the officers weapons he became an imminent threat and a danger to the officers lives and the general public.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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

But then I DIDN'T just say "nope" did I?

I pointed out that the taser had been fired and was at that point empty and that the officer knew that

Yea you admitted the guy shot at a cop and then somehow tried to use that as proof he wasn't a threat.

As fucked up as that sounds that's your stupid fucking arguement.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

And as I have said countless time now, if Brooks had been shot during the struggle this would be a different story.

But AT THE TIME HE WAS SHOT, he was no longer a threat to either cop's safety.


So tell me if i as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop.

Immanent danger and threat do not come in and out of play based on your feelings. The second Crooks went for the officers weapons he became an imminent threat and a danger to the officers lives and the general public.

I am not the one using feelings to rationalize shooting a person in the back. That's all you And I have said countless times now that if Brooks had been shot during the struggle this would be an entirely different story.

I know the standards for a civilian to claim self defense do you?

I have a carry permit do you?

I am comparing the standard for a civilain to claim shooting in self defense and comparing it to what the cop did when he shot a man in the back and you cannot tell me why a civilian should be held to a higher standard than a cop.

 

[Blues Man]

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

But then I DIDN'T just say "nope" did I?

I pointed out that the taser had been fired and was at that point empty and that the officer knew that

Yea you admitted the guy shot at a cop and then somehow tried to use that as proof he wasn't a threat.

As fucked up as that sounds that's your stupid fucking arguement.

After he fired the Taser and missed by a mile that taser was no longer capable of being used as a weapon. You don't think the cop knew how department issued Tasers work?

 

[airplanemechanic]

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

But then I DIDN'T just say "nope" did I?

I pointed out that the taser had been fired and was at that point empty and that the officer knew that

Yea you admitted the guy shot at a cop and then somehow tried to use that as proof he wasn't a threat.

As fucked up as that sounds that's your stupid fucking arguement.

After he fired the Taser and missed by a mile that taser was no longer capable of being used as a weapon. You don't think the cop knew how department issued Tasers work?

Doesn't matter. The fact that he SHOT AT A COP shows he was a threat.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

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

1. People have die after being Tased by police....so you can't say he would not have.

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.

Yeah after multiple shocks.

And could have, would have, might have scenarios are irrelevant.

That Taser had one shot. The shot missed by a mile then he dropped it. There was no way he could have incapacitated the cop with the taser after he dropped it.

As a civilian if I shot an unarmed man in the back as he was running away from me there is no way in hell any court would accept a self defense plea. Why should a trained police officer be held to a lower standard than a civilian?

Because cops have an affirmative duty to arrest fleeing felons, dummy.

 

[Blues Man]

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

But then I DIDN'T just say "nope" did I?

I pointed out that the taser had been fired and was at that point empty and that the officer knew that

Yea you admitted the guy shot at a cop and then somehow tried to use that as proof he wasn't a threat.

As fucked up as that sounds that's your stupid fucking arguement.

After he fired the Taser and missed by a mile that taser was no longer capable of being used as a weapon. You don't think the cop knew how department issued Tasers work?

Doesn't matter. The fact that he SHOT AT A COP shows he was a threat.

He was not a threat when he got shot.

He was unarmed and running away.

Maybe you'll answer the question I posed dozens of times on this subject.

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

 

[airplanemechanic]

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

But then I DIDN'T just say "nope" did I?

I pointed out that the taser had been fired and was at that point empty and that the officer knew that

Yea you admitted the guy shot at a cop and then somehow tried to use that as proof he wasn't a threat.

As fucked up as that sounds that's your stupid fucking arguement.

After he fired the Taser and missed by a mile that taser was no longer capable of being used as a weapon. You don't think the cop knew how department issued Tasers work?

Doesn't matter. The fact that he SHOT AT A COP shows he was a threat.

He was not a threat when he got shot.

He was unarmed and running away.

Maybe you'll answer the question I posed dozens of times on this subject.

If I as a civilian with a carry permit shot a man in the back as he was running away from me I could not claim self defense even if he assaulted me before he ran because the second he turned and ran the threat to my safety no longer existed.

I would be charged with murder at that point.

So tell me why should a civilian be held to a higher standard than a cop?

Your question is not a valid question. The citizen wouldn't be placing the man under arrest for drunk driving. The citizen has no right to detain him, the cop did.

So stop asking your stupid question comparing a LEO with arrest rights to a citizen.