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

[Blues Man]

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.

Arrest not shoot in the back.

They could have chased him down and tackled him or since they had his car, his name and his address they could have called a few more cops and gone to his house to arrest him.

At the time he was shot he was no longer a threat to the cops

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

 

[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?

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.

It doesn't matter the threat to the cops safety and to my safety are equal in both scenarios.

And I have already said countless times that if Brooks was shot during the actual physical altercation then this would be an entirely different story.

But at the time he was shot he no longer posed any threat to either cop. This is what makes the story different from self defense.

 

[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.

It doesn't matter the threat to the cops safety and to my safety are equal in both scenarios.

And I have already said countless times that if Brooks was shot during the actual physical altercation then this would be an entirely different story.

But at the time he was shot he no longer posed any threat to either cop. This is what makes the story different from self defense.

But what led UP to both would be vastly different. A citizen would have no reason to chase this negro through the streets. But then the negro would have no reason to attack a citizen and take their taser. I guess if he did then yes the citizen could draw his handgun and shoot the guy. So there is your answer.

There is no doubt in my mind Chauvin will be found guilty of murder and if this cop is charged he will be found innocent. Way way different situations.

 

[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?

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.

It doesn't matter the threat to the cops safety and to my safety are equal in both scenarios.

And I have already said countless times that if Brooks was shot during the actual physical altercation then this would be an entirely different story.

But at the time he was shot he no longer posed any threat to either cop. This is what makes the story different from self defense.

But what led UP to both would be vastly different. A citizen would have no reason to chase this negro through the streets. But then the negro would have no reason to attack a citizen and take their taser. I guess if he did then yes the citizen could draw his handgun and shoot the guy. So there is your answer.

Not not really.

I already included an assault in my civilian scenario.

The cops didn't need to chase him either. They had his name and address so they could have arrested him at any time.

And even if the cops did chase him at that point he had no weapon because the Taser had already been discharged and could not be used again. The cops know this.

And you're only saying negro because the site will edit the word you really want to use.

The man's color has no importance here whatsoever and I have never once mentioned the races of the cops or the man the cop shot in the back.

 

[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.

Arrest not shoot in the back.

They could have chased him down and tackled him or since they had his car, his name and his address they could have called a few more cops and gone to his house to arrest him.

At the time he was shot he was no longer a threat to the cops

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

That isn't the way it works , you don't get to commit a felony right in front of cops and just walk away well come arrest you later. In fact the cops would be facing disciplinary actions if they had done that.

Now generally speaking that does not allow the use of deadly force on it's own, but you have to look at the totality of the situation here, that dumb shit had fought with two cops, and had turned and fired a taser , the cop returned fire, as the law allows them to . We both know the only reason he was shot in the back is because he spun around after firing the taser before the bullet struck him. That's quite clear from the video.

As I said earlier in the thread, it IS possible to both be sorry that this had to end in a man's death, and acknowledge that the cop did his job.


We both also know that if the man had been white, same circumstances no one would care. Cops aren't guilty of a crme just because of the skin color of the victim.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Arrest not shoot in the back.

They could have chased him down and tackled him or since they had his car, his name and his address they could have called a few more cops and gone to his house to arrest him.

At the time he was shot he was no longer a threat to the cops

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

That isn't the way it works , you don't get to commit a felony right in front of cops and just walk away well come arrest you later. In fact the cops would be facing disciplinary actions if they had done that.

Now generally speaking that does not allow the use of deadly force on it's own, but you have to look at the totality of the situation here, that dumb shit had fought with two cops, and had turned and fired a taser , the cop returned fire, as the law allows them to . We both know the only reason he was shot in the back is because he spun around after firing the taser before the bullet struck him. That's quite clear from the video.

As I said earlier in the thread, it IS possible to both be sorry that this had to end in a man's death, and acknowledge that the cop did his job.


We both also know that if the man had been white, same circumstances no one would care. Cops aren't guilty of a crme just because of the skin color of the victim.

I already said they could have chased him down and tackled him. Would that sate your lust for violence?

I have looked at the totality. You are the one who thinks the emotions of the cops should be the determining factor in any shooting.

At the time Brooks was shot ,and I would be saying the exact same thing if it was 2 Black cops shooting a White guy, neither cop's life or safety was in peril.

And how many times do I have to tell you people that if Brooks was shot during the actual scuffle I would say it was a justified shooting. But he wasn't. He was shot in the back after the altercation had ended and he was not longer a threat to the cops lives.

 

[easyt65]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

 

[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.

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.

You continue to tell me that you are getting your information from what someone told you and you wanted to believe. I seem to recall you telling me just a post or two ago that he was in cuffs, but now you mysteriously have realized he wasn't.

Also, there's a big difference between "I could tell it was a Taser from the video" . . . which you watched in your comfy chair while sipping coffee, and the situation in the heat of the moment with actual consequences riding on your decisions.

The fact of the matter is, whatever armchair "experts" like you think after the fact, based on your "extensive" knowledge of what the Internet tells you, this shooting falls squarely within the applicable law in Atlanta, and also standard police procedure in Atlanta. Neither of those things were determined on the fly by ignorant civilians making emotional decisions after being hyped up by the media.

You resist arrest, assault police officers, and steal a weapon off of one - ANY weapon - you run the risk of being shot, and it's on YOU, not them.

 

[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."

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

How would you know? You already admitted you didn't read my post because you didn't think you needed to.

 

[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.

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.

Damned shame that the law and standard police procedure both disagree with you. It's almost as though they thought they knew something you didn't after your extensive five minutes of hormonal "thinking".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The fact that he assaulted two cops without any weapon, then stole an officer's weapon, showed that he was a threat.

 

[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.

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.

I don't care. I don't care. If you attack a police officer AT ALL.... you should be shot.

Don't attack police officers. If you do, and get shot, you can whine and cry until you die, and you'll just die... and we'll all be happy about it.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

This is how evil and stupid left-wingers are.

"He shot at police so he's not a threat!" is an actual argument by left-wingers.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

The fact that he assaulted two cops without any weapon, then stole an officer's weapon, showed that he was a threat.

This is OBVIOUS to any thinking non-political person.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

How would you know? You already admitted you didn't read my post because you didn't think you needed to.

LOL

"I don't read anything you posted, but somehow I know you are wrong!"

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

No it hasn't

All you did was tel;l me why you think the cops should shoot people

you did not address the fact that a civilian has a much higher standard to meet for a self defense shootying than the standard you want to apply to cops.

IOW it's OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed man as he is running away but it's not Ok for a civilian to do the very same thing

 

[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.

How would you know? You already admitted you didn't read my post because you didn't think you needed to.

Because it was nothing but an emotional rant that did not address the fucking facts.

and you want to call me emotional.

I am speaking only to the facts. You didn't even know that Brooks was frisked before they tried to cuff him. You don't know that a Taser can only be fired one time before it need a reload.

IOW you are letting your emotions and outrage that the guy scuffled with the cops dictate your opinion.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

Maybe you'll answer this question since no one else will

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.

Maybe no one will give you the answer you want / demand.

The policeman who shot Brooks has been arrested and faces possible murder charges. No different standard has been applied. The same is true in the George Floyd case. The equal justice demanded is being carried out.

So what is the justification for the rioting, looting, destruction of property, destruction of people's lives by burning down their stores, assaults, murder, ambushing and murdering of policeman who had nothing to do with either case - who could be outstanding men and women, incredible parents, husbands, friends, and proponents for change sought?

More INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in the names of Floyd and Woods than was done TO Woods and Floyd!

What is going on / what has gone on - all the violence, destruction, murder, and division perpetrated by those using them as justification to do what they have done have caused more damage, division, and injustice than the murders of Floyd and Woods - this has NOT all been about them.

I'm not demanding anything.

I am simply asking a question that no one will answer so I'll keep asking it until someone here has the intellectual balls to answer it.

The people who are saying the cops did the right thing by shooting a fleeing man in the back are the people I am asking the question.

I want to know why they think a cop should be held to a lower standard than a civilian in a shooting event such as this one.

And once again this incident has nothing to do with any riots or property crimes.

Personally I think torching the Burger King was reprehensible and completely unwarranted. But all that happened after the shooting and has no bearing on the shooting.

That your question has been answered at least 5 times , with you ignoring each answer proves that you are stupid more than anything.

Cops are NOT held to a lower standard, in fact they are held to a higher standard. In that they have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to stop a fleeing felon. They are not permitted to say "well we know his name, we'll just go to his house and wait for him"

The moment this guy resisted arresst he became a felon. the moment he got ahold of a taser he became a danger to society, the moment he fired that taser at a cop, he opened up the possibility of being shot, which he was.

This guy could and would be at home today if he had simply not resisted arrest. It's disgusting that morons like yourself will never just say that "don't resist arrest" once you resist , it doesn't matter what skin color you have , bad things are gonna happen, the police aren't just gonna say "nah forget it" and let you go. Well they may soon start doing that, but is that what you REALLY want?

How is it that 2.3M blacks are in jail right now, proving that blacks are capable of not being shot as a result of resisting arrest, and yet here you sit claiming that they can't help it and therefor cops should just let them go once they resist?

No it hasn't

All you did was tel;l me why you think the cops should shoot people

you did not address the fact that a civilian has a much higher standard to meet for a self defense shootying than the standard you want to apply to cops.

IOW it's OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed man as he is running away but it's not Ok for a civilian to do the very same thing

The world would be so much better off if we could screen stupid people such as yourselves from being allowed to steal resources from the rest of us.

You have the right of self defense moron, if some jackass was running away from you and turned and fired a taser at you and you shot him, you almost certainly would not be charged with a crime.

Your mom should be charged with a crime for not swallowing you though.