Rayshard Brooks charging decision today

a reply to: andy06shake

It’s an expression. In America, we don’t mean everything we say. It’s like you skipped passed the meat of what I was saying and went straight to the garnish.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

No it does not. The shooting had absolutely nothing to do with the man's skin color.
Anybody that believes it does is brainwashed. This would have happened no matter what the man's skin color.

You doubt me - if you are white go out and do the same thing - go get drunk and stay in a drive through lane.

Have your friends film it. Then fight the cops and go for their taser, and shoot it at them. I DARE YOU.

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

It's not the planet that's retarded, put it that way.

People waiting for God to come and sort out this mess.

Well, they might tick that box.

Anyhoo let's not kill anyone and let cooler heads prevail would be my thinking on the matter.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes, and I've answered the question multiple times. If Officer Rolfe wasn't capable of percieving the situation around him and making the proper decisions, then he didn't need to be on the force. There was plenty of evidence that Officer Rolfe was not in danger, nor his partner, nor any member of the public. You can't seem to move beyond your opinion, which is fine but it's obviously not the only opinion nor has it proven to be correct.

Officer Rolfe wasn't being violently assaulted, a man was running away from him. Remember that 18 + ft or so that you're so excited about. Officer Rolfe broke multiple departmental policies INCLUDING kicking the man repeatedly after he had shot him in the back. You keep failing to notice that apparently.

You're paraphrasing what the DA said. You know it, I know it.

By the way, are you concerned at all that one of Rolfe's expert shots went into a car parked nearby with several people in it.

Is it also SOP to kick a suspect when he's down with two gunshot wounds?

Here, you can check the policies yourself:

Standard Operating Procedures - Atlanta Police Department

Let's keep congratulating ex-Officer Rolfe who shot a man in the back, then kicked him when he was down and shot into a civilian vehicle. I'm beginning to understand that thin blue line much better, thanks.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Let's keep congratulating ex-Officer Rolfe who shot a man in the back, then kicked him when he was down and shot into a civilian vehicle. I'm beginning to understand that thin blue line much better, thanks.

Not like this guy who was shot could not have hit a car filled with a family driving home or run someone over in the drive thru since he was so drunk he passed out.

He was fine till he knew the cops guard was down applying the cuffs and HE attacked the cops. No one was beating anyone till then. if he would not have resisted no one would ever know how nice and calm the cops were up until he tried to escape police custody.

Should he be dead? No. Was the shooting justified? Yes . Poor decisions kill people every day.....

a reply to: matafuchs

Now you're going to predict a future that didn't happen? Anything to attempt to dehumanize the murdered suspect?

He resisted arrest. They were in their rights to subdue him, not shoot him in the back at 20 ft way.

We will see if the shooting was justified, that goes to the judicial system to decide.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's the real kicker for me, pun intended.

Once you shoot someone, repeatedly, striking them whilst on the ground, is not just overkill, it's actively showing menace and malice towards an incapacitated adversary on the floor.

If that's what Policing is all about for some of these so-called officers of the law you have to ponder the logic of it all.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's the real kicker for me, pun intended.

Once you shoot someone, repeatedly, striking them whilst on the ground, is not just overkill, it's actively showing menace and malice towards an incapacitated adversary on the floor.

If that's what Policing is all about for some of these so-called officers of the law you have to ponder the logic of it all.

"It goes to motive" I think is the operant phrase.

The Fulton DA has photographic evidence of the taser deployment. There were multiple surveilance cameras as well.

Eyewitness accounts, investigation at the scene. We will see.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No humanize the suspect. You are dehumanizing the officers by saying this...

If Officer Rolfe wasn't capable of percieving the situation around him and making the proper decisions, then he didn't need to be on the force. There was plenty of evidence that Officer Rolfe was not in danger, nor his partner, nor any member of the public.

The officer had no idea what was going to happen but he had to 'protect his own life' not worry about the life of the suspect. The fact that you want to defend someone who attacked officers and then stole a tazer and used it is so much worse than ANYONE trying to point out the officer was justified.

Step back and listen to yourself. Have you been so blinded that you will defend a criminal no matter what?

Where is the video of him kicking him? I see a 'picture' the DA is showing but no video. Would have also been nice if they expressed the officers also performed CPR.

This is what can happen in a heartbeat...with a tazer involved...was the suspect justified????

a reply to: matafuchs

I am dehumanizing him because I said he should be qualified to do his job?

Respectfully disagree.

ETA: Further, I"m not defending a criminal. Brooks should have been subdued and had his day in court.

Can you demonstrate where I said Brooks wasn't gulity of DUI, or resisting arrest? No, you can't.

Look, I know that LEOs and their families feel strongly about this, but this was NOT justified. The more info that becomes available, the more clearly we can see that Rolfe murdered a man with malice.

a reply to: matafuchs

He was not so much attacking anyone as he was attempting to flee from them.

Hence the reason the use of lethal force is in question.

Guess the legality of there actions will be determined in the courts.

a reply to: andy06shake

That was not a fight? Man you would make a great lawyer.

a reply to: Gryphon66

They did subdue him. He was shot.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

It's not the planet that's retarded, put it that way.

People waiting for God to come and sort out this mess.

Well, they might tick that box.

Anyhoo let's not kill anyone and let cooler heads prevail would be my thinking on the matter.

You say people that believe in God are retarded. I say people that don’t know the difference between figuratively and literally are retarded. Keep chewing on that garnish and avoid the steak. And keep thinking you’re smarter while you do it. 😂

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

I said some of them could tick the box, some of them.

I'm smart enough to know right from wrong.

Police, not so much or so it seems.

Anyhoo you chew down on the FACT that the officers in question have been charged.

So i think we can let the court decide.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

They did subdue him. He was shot.

They didn't subdue him, they murdered him.

Or can you excuse Rolfe's kicking the suspect lying on the ground too?

a reply to: matafuchs

Did not say it was not a fight, probably use the word scuffle all the same.

Fight suggests Brooks wanted to come into conflict with the officers.

Whereas he was shot running away.

It's not cut and dry put it that way.

As to making a great lawyer, that would not be my particular bag of chosen spanners.

Considering justice can be purchase to some extent if you have the monies and capacity to dance between the raindrops.

a reply to: andy06shake

I’ll be looking for you in that thread.

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Naw mate its the courts that will decide the guilt or innocence of the so-called officers in question, not threads on ATS.

It's not us that are prosecuting them, or that will judge them, but their peers i imagine.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I cannot find the video of him kicking him. Do you have it?