Rayshard Brooks charging decision today

a reply to: Gryphon66

What is the lethality rating of my bare hands?
How about if I tazed the intended person first?

Keep in mind I did unarmed security in a hospital dealing with people in all sorts of chemical, emotional and mental states for years without so much as a black eye from it. And yes, I have had training in hand to hand as well as blunt weapons.

Hint: It really all depends on if I intend to lethal force. Just like a takedown can be a trip or a sweep of the legs or a tackle. It doesn’t really matter.

And that is why it doesn’t matter if it was a lethal weapon or less than lethal. The discuss is and always should be about intent. Brooks obviously wanted to get away. He was willing to injure or kill to get away. His poor choices put him into the position. His continued poor choices ended in his death.


Was Brook right or wrong...doesn’t matter because he failed to give himself the opportunity to have his day in court by aggressively resisting. The 30+ minutes of peaceful conversation prior to arrest showed he was capable of not being violent. Proves the cops were not intent on just killing a guy for the hell of it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, video shows Rolfe's actions. As you well know.

Right, but you said there’s evidence that Rolfe knew the taser had fired two shots already. That’s what I asked about, not whether there’s video of his actions.

You stated that you only spotted one "flash" from the taser. Is that correct or incorrect?

Correct.

No, you're not in the middle of a fight. Officer Rolfe, who has been trained for such situations, and has received additional training in the last few months was.

Yea, kind of my point. I’ve been on the job years longer than Rolfe has. I’ve received the same training. And sitting on my couch, I can’t see or hear when the first deployment of Bronson’s taser is other than when brooks fired it. I see Bronson trying to drive stun brooks, Rolfe shooting Brooks with Rolfe’s taser with no visible effect, and then brooks shooting Bronson’s taser at Rolfe.

Yes, one officer or potentially one member of the public. Not both officers though. And there was no indication based on their previous interactionw with Brooks, that he had any intention to harm the public. If we're going to start predicting the future, Rolfes shots could have harmed members of the public that were observing as well.

Gotcha. So now we’re going to say officers should just take the hit because there’s another officer in the area who can handle it. Seems super reasonable. I’m not sure why you and the DA are focused on brooks’ behavior before he violently assaulted them. Nobody is arguing that brooks came out of the car shooting. What brooks did was go from compliant to aggravated assault in about 30 seconds. Those are the important seconds, not what he did before that.

Your interpretation of the law.

That would be SCOTUS, actually. I’m not on the bench.

Brooks was technically a suspect, and you know that shooting a fleeing suspect is not justified unless he is putting life in eminient danger. Mr. Brooks was not.

Fleeing with a Taser after committing aggravated assault on law enforcement satisfies the requirement of putting the public under threat of death or serious bodily injury, since the DA considers tasers to be deadly weapons. The actual ruling doesn’t say “life in danger.” It says significant threat of death or serious injury.

ETA - also, in response to your Miranda question: you don’t have to be mirandized at all, if nobody is asking you questions. The whole Miranda warning as the cuffs go on is a tv thing. SCOTUS has held that there is no constitutional requirement for an officer to inform somebody of their charges at the time of arrest, only that they be informed of them. Some states require that an officer inform the arrestee as early as possible, when feasible.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

ETA - also, in response to your Miranda question: you don’t have to be mirandized at all, if nobody is asking you questions. The whole Miranda warning as the cuffs go on is a tv thing. SCOTUS has held that there is no constitutional requirement for an officer to inform somebody of their charges at the time of arrest, only that they be informed of them. Some states require that an officer inform the arrestee as early as possible, when feasible.

I think they were trying to get the cuffs on peacefully, which is why the no Miranda, or telling him what charges he was being detained for. I have seen it before, they try to get the cuffs on casually so there is no confrontation. "You're just being detained", and "You're not under arrest at the moment", usually leads to an arrest.

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: Shamrock6

ETA - also, in response to your Miranda question: you don’t have to be mirandized at all, if nobody is asking you questions. The whole Miranda warning as the cuffs go on is a tv thing. SCOTUS has held that there is no constitutional requirement for an officer to inform somebody of their charges at the time of arrest, only that they be informed of them. Some states require that an officer inform the arrestee as early as possible, when feasible.

I think they were trying to get the cuffs on peacefully, which is why the no Miranda, or telling him what charges he was being detained for. I have seen it before, they try to get the cuffs on casually so there is no confrontation. "You're just being detained", and "You're not under arrest at the moment", usually leads to an arrest.

They did inform him about why he was being arrested, they said they believed he was too drunk to be operating a vehicle, everyone knows that means DUI.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
If I was making a citizen’s arrest in this case and it went down the same way and I shot him in the back then I’m going to jail. I know it and everyone here knows it. I might or might not get off with the jury but I’m getting hooked up on scene and being charged. I’m tired of cops being held to lower standards than the general public even though they should be better equipped to handle the situation.

With backup he shot him in the back running away because he had something they shot each other with in training. Cops are quitting over this because they believe they should not be questioned. Good riddance. They are the problem. I’m good with whatever the court outcome is.

This all day long

originally posted by: one4all
Civic Police work does not include execution.....ever....someone dieing should be a rarity and only happen when the entire System breaks down not as SOP as is happening now.

Are you kidding me - it is a damn rarity. How can you be this ignorant. 10 unarmed blacks were killed by cops last year and at least 6 of them resisted arrest - only 2 cops were charged for wrongful murder. This is with hundreds of thousands of police stops.

Lets just face it....for many years now it was attractive for criminal minded people with no record yet to become Cops to benefit from their screwed up minds....thousands and thousands of deviants try to hit the Jackpot every year by landing a LEO job.

Its time for change.

You think charging these cops with murder - when Georgia law says they were in the right to respond with deadly force is going to allow Atlanta to recruit good cops??? You idiot - this is going to mean the only people willing to work as cops are going to be sociopaths.

The guy 1/2 arsed pointed a NON-LETHAL weapon at 2 armed Cops....they have no defense saying they were under threat of death for it was THEIR OWN NON-LETHAL tool he was using......it was cold blooded execution to assert that NO ONE SHOULD RUN FROM THE P-O-L-I-C-E.....IN cANDA THEY EXECUTE YOU FOR KICKS AND GIGGLES IF YOU REFUSE A SIMPLE VERBAL REQUEST..its a scenario where Civc Governments have made themselves impossible to sue....impossible to hold accountable....made it impossible to sue the Cops ….its collusionary with zero doubt and endemic across the Nation and World.

Funny - the same DA called a stun gun a lethal weapon in a press conference - 1 week ago - and it is considered a lethal weapon by Georgia law.

So you think people should be allowed to fight cops grab at their weapons and the cops should just take it huh? NOBODY that is not a sociopath is going to work that job. Cops have to have the right to protect themselves and be given the benefit of the doubt because they are constantly put in life and death danger.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Actually, you speciously suggested that we have to be able to read Rolfe's mind to know the facts of the matter. We do not, you know that. The video shows what the video shows, no more, no less.

So, one "flash" from the taser means one of the two charges/shots had been fired/deployed? You mention that you could have missed the second "flash."

Sitting on your couch you also don't know what the officers did and said off video. Sitting on your couch you also can't say that Rolfe did or did not know or realize that deadly force was or was not necessary to subdue the suspect.

But you can say without a doubt while sitting on your couch, that lethal force was justified. Gotcha.

Really? Could you cite the Supreme Court decision you're referring to for your judgement?

Your argument rises and falls on the taser being lethal. Your critique of the DA's charges rests on your interpretation that he claims it was lethal in one case and not another. You know you can't really make that argument logically.

Should Mr. Brooks have been Mirandized? Should the officers have observed Atlanta Police Department policy in making the arrest?

a reply to: Ahabstar

As I understand it, the matter does not regard whether Brooks wanted to get away. The matter doesn't even regard Brooks mental state.

The matter regards Officer Rolfe's actions. He was authorized to us the amount of force he was faced with. What do they call that the spectrum of force or something? A taser is not a deadly weapon for all practical purposes.

I am not an attorney, nor am I the DA nor am I a police officer. Perhaps the Fulton County DA has made a mistake. Perhaps it is political grandstanding. Perhaps Officers Rolfe and Bronson will be fully acquitted of all charges.

You are apparently very knowledgable of these matters, and I undrestand Shamrock is a law enforcement professional. You both have expressed opinions, and you may well be right. However, at this point, even for you guys, much less all the chorus here, those are still just opinions.

I have offered a differing opinion on a few points. I may be completely mistaken as well.

THe point is, a man is dead that probably should be alive, and it falls right into line with the larger narrative that cops are excuting Black men in the streets of America. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if that narrative is statistically accurate or not. History has consequences.

Rayshard Brooks charging decision today

He shouldn't be charged with anything.

He followed protocol laid out in the police manual.

originally posted by: neo96
Rayshard Brooks charging decision today

He shouldn't be charged with anything.

He followed protocol laid out in the police manual.

According to the DA and the Atlanta Police Department, he didn't.

I guess we will see in court.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't give a rats rear end what a corrupt DA says.

Look up the guy.

yahoo

“The department is experiencing a higher than usual number of call outs with the incoming shift,” the police department tweeted Wednesday night. “We have enough resources to maintain operations & remain able to respond to incidents.”

Other less reliable reports said that some officers that did report refused to leave the precinct except to help other officers.

11 charges including felony murder yea I would be using my sick leave as well, till your bosses are doing their job why risk it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't give a rats rear end what a corrupt DA says.

Look up the guy.

So the Police Department is also corrupt?

They fired Rolfe in less than 24 hrs.

How far does the "corruption" have to spread to justify your point?

a reply to: Gryphon66

So the Police Department is also corrupt?

The ones that walked out arent.

So WHY didn't the CROOKED DA wait for the investigation to be done before filing charges eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, you speciously suggested that we have to be able to read Rolfe's mind to know the facts of the matter. We do not, you know that. The video shows what the video shows, no more, no less.

No, what happened is that you said there’s evidence to show what Rolfe knew and I asked for that evidence. Anything you read into that question is your own doing. I asked what I asked, it was specific, and anything beyond that is in your head, not mine.

So, one "flash" from the taser means one of the two charges/shots had been fired/deployed? You mention that you could have missed the second "flash."

I’ve never suggested otherwise. Having said that, if I missed it then it’s not at all unreasonable to think an officer being violently assaulted missed it also.

Sitting on your couch you also don't know what the officers did and said off video. Sitting on your couch you also can't say that Rolfe did or did not know or realize that deadly force was or was not necessary to subdue the suspect.

Cool. Never suggested I did know what he knew or didn’t know. Attacking a point not made.

But you can say without a doubt while sitting on your couch, that lethal force was justified. Gotcha.

Like you say it wasn’t, you mean? Yes, I can.

Really? Could you cite the Supreme Court decision you're referring to for your judgement?

Sure. Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. You’re welcome to ask questions.

Your argument rises and falls on the taser being lethal. Your critique of the DA's charges rests on your interpretation that he claims it was lethal in one case and not another. You know you can't really make that argument logically.

There’s no argument to make. There’s video of him saying it’s a lethal weapon in one case and video of him saying it’s not in another case. There’s no interpretation required.

Should Mr. Brooks have been Mirandized? Should the officers have observed Atlanta Police Department policy in making the arrest?

What’s their policy?

Only in America can a felon for child abuse be found drunk and asleep behind the wheel, resist arrest, overtake the officers, steal their weapon and use it against them and still have public support because he’s not a cop.
I am so ready for God to clean up this mess again. They say he’ll use fire next time. I say a lot of you deserve it

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

So kill them all and let God sort them out???

You do realize you're just as flammable as the rest of us?

God has not said much or anything at all for that matter aside from in ghostwritten books.

The only person coming to save us, is us, i'm afraid.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yep. Kill us all. This planet is retarded. I’ve been arrested a few times. Always knew resisting and taking their weapons wasn’t worth it. Even when I could. Still alive to talk about it. Imagine that.

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Me too but some people are luckier than others.

Never tried to take away a Police weapon all the same.

Don't need to imagine much when there are multiple instances of Police brutality, murder, and assault on video, clear for all to see these days.

But like i said, if you are waiting for God to turn up and fry the planet, you're going to be there a while, more chance of a big freeze if we are honest given the epochs our Earth moves in.

Common sense says don't commit a violent act against a person carrying a gun. Chances are it's going to end up badly for you.