Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
MontyPython

Here We Go Again: Atlanta

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Severian

Note: A taser is not a "non-lethal" weapon, it's a "less lethal" weapon. If you have certain conditions (heart, etc.) or fall and hit your head, it can be just as lethal as being shot with a 9mm.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
searcher
58 minutes ago, BootsieBets said:

Believe me, I wouldn’t want to have to make those split second life and death decisions.  Taking a person's life, even if it was justified and the only option available has to be devastating.  And with the atmosphere now, it is going to get harder and harder to attract really good men and women who will be willing to become LEO’s.  I truly fear for our nation as we go down this path.

Absolutely, One of the videos I watched, he pointed the taser back at the cop and I saw what looked like sparks coming from it. In the moment it well could have looked to him like a muzzle flash and he returned fire. I do know that in a firefight many times people can't remember how many rounds they fired and some can't remember even hearing the sound of gunfire. The cop may not have known it was a taser the guy had. LIke in most cases different facts come out at different times, I should learn before making snap judgements on things I hear.

Mark

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
On 6/14/2020 at 2:20 AM, Moderator T said:

On top of that they've already fired the officer for the good shoot, the chief's resigned, and the mayor's already declared it a bad shoot with zero knowledge.

it was a questionable shoot per APD's own rules. Unfortunately, the mayor is on Biden's short list and the DA is in the middle of a heated run-off election to keep his job.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
On 6/13/2020 at 11:31 PM, MontyPython said:

Black guy is drunk and asleep in a Wendy's drive-thru. Police arrive. Drunk guy fails a breathalyzer. Police attempt to arrest him. He fights them. He grabs one of the police tazers, runs, turns and points it at police. Gets shot. GOOD. Exactly what he deserves.

But of course nowadays if you're black you're apparently supposed to get away with anything. So of course they're rioting in Atlanta. Blocking the freeway. Burning the Wendy's to the ground (as though ANYBODY at Wendy's did ANYTHING wrong.)

So that's it today? If you're black you are allowed to commit any crime scot-free? If you get exactly what you're asking for, it's time to riot?

<_<

 

Dude was sh1t-faced to the point of passing out behind the wheel at a Wendy's drive-thru. The cops nudge him awake, he can't even identify the town he's in. He grabs a cop's (non-lethal) taser and fires it, probably at imaginary pink elephants. He was no harm to anybody.

This just wasn't, per APD policy, a legit "Lethal Force" situation.

JMHO: Cops should ditch tasers, a lazy man's weapon, and go back to Nightsticks/Truncheons/D-Cell Maglites. You can drop someone JUST as effectively, with no permanent harm, IF you're properly trained.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BootsieBets
27 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

it was a questionable shoot per APD's own rules. Unfortunately, the mayor is on Biden's short list and the DA is in the middle of a heated run-off election to keep his job.

Yea, there’s no prejudicial influences there! 

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
7 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

He grabs a cop's (non-lethal) taser and fires it, probably at imaginary pink

Less Lethal.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confessor
1 hour ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Not per APD policy. See my post on this in the other thread.

Brooks was intoxicated, to be sure. Likely passed out / Blacked out whilst behind the wheel at the Wendy's drive through. To be apprehended, taken off the street, for sure. But it STOPPED SHORT of justified "Deadly Force" per APD policy.

 

On 6/14/2020 at 5:35 AM, That_Guy said:

Who are you to be so dismissive of another human being's life?

A better question:  Why was Brooks so dismissive of everyone’s life, including his own?  Intoxicated driving, fighting with police, taking a weapon from a cop, and firing that weapon at a cop?  
Typical leftist. Blame everyone except the person the blame should squarely fall on:  Brooks. 

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
3 minutes ago, Confessor said:

 

A better question:  Why was Brooks so dismissive of everyone’s life, including his own?  Intoxicated driving, fighting with police, taking a weapon from a cop, and firing that weapon at a cop?  
Typical leftist. Blame everyone except the person the blame should squarely fall on:  Brooks. 

The blame for Brook's should fall squarely on Brooks. Yes, definitely. But this just didn't rise to a 'lethal force' situation.

Or are we now saying that any drunken sot who raises a hand in anger towards LEOs should be summarily executed for it?

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
2 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

The blame for Brook's should fall squarely on Brooks. Yes, definitely. But this just didn't rise to a 'lethal force' situation.

Or are we now saying that any drunken sot who raises a hand in anger towards LEOs should be summarily executed for it?

Until you come up with a way of creating a Karnak cop clip that attaches to their headwear so they can know EXACTLY what every single person they approach is going to do, perhaps you could stop using that wide brush of yours.

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
32 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

The blame for Brook's should fall squarely on Brooks. Yes, definitely. But this just didn't rise to a 'lethal force' situation.

Or are we now saying that any drunken sot who raises a hand in anger towards LEOs should be summarily executed for it?

6 weeks ago you were making the case for two white guys forming a posse to go after a black guy for something they THOUGHT he did wrong. 

 

This drunken sot was apparently sober and strong enough to wrestle his way away from two police officers and steal one of their weapons.....which he then aimed at an officer.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specs
1 hour ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

it was a questionable shoot per APD's own rules. Unfortunately, the mayor is on Biden's short list and the DA is in the middle of a heated run-off election to keep his job.

Except that a prior instance with a cop firing a taser at a guy, they deemed it unauthorized use of deadly force.

Sorry, but there is not room for subjective reasoning. If the taser is lethal in one instance, that same taser is lethal in others. I do not give two &lt;censored&gt; what a democRAT has to say on the matter. 

If they have different rules for black people over cops, that there is the problem and siding with democRATs makes anything else you say suspect.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
1 minute ago, Dutch13 said:

6 weeks ago you were making the case for two white guys forming a posse to go after a black guy for something they THOUGHT he did wrong.

This drunken sot was apparently sober and strong enough to wrestle his way away from two police officers and steal one of their weapons.....which he then aimed at an officer.

Damn, Dutch, has it been 6 weeks already? I need to have a word with Norman Einstein about that whole space time continuum thing.

Two guys going after a kid who was at least a possible felony burglary 'suspect' is one thing.

One cop shooting a dude who was so drunk off his ass that he didn't know where he was and couldn't hit the broad side of a Wendy's with a taser is a different thing entirely. 

 

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 hour ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

He was no harm to anybody.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. He was still strong enough to physically grapple with two fully-sober cops, beat them both and get free, grab one of their weapons, run away and turn and fire the weapon. Any suggestion he was "harmless" is just plain ridiculous.

B)

 

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel
6 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

Sorry, but that's just wrong. He was still strong enough to physically grapple with two fully-sober cops, beat them both and get free, grab one of their weapons, run away and turn and fire the weapon. Any suggestion he was "harmless" is just plain ridiculous.

B)

 

Play stupid games win stupid prizes. He cashed out on the biggest stuffed animal the fair had. But he earned it

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
7 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Play stupid games win stupid prizes. He cashed out on the biggest stuffed animal the fair had. But he earned it

:yes:

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
10 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

The guy was possibly drunk in the drivers seat of a car.

He wasn't operating the car, which was safely parked.

10 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

He fought with police officers when they tried to arrest him. 

It took the responding officer, and then some sort of DUI specialist 40 minutes and a series of field sobriety tests to decide that he should be placed under arrest for operating a vehicle long enough to move it from the drive-thru lane into a parking spot.

They could tell he was in some kind of mental distress, and he had informed at least one of them that he'd been visiting his mother's gravesite.

10 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

 He stole one of their weapons.

He tried to shoot the officer with the weapon.

Both were bad choices.  

The officers should have been trained to known the effective range of that non-lethal weapon, and how to safely pursue someone carrying that non-lethal weapon. 

  • Disagree (-1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
8 hours ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Or are we now saying that any drunken sot who raises a hand in anger towards LEOs should be summarily executed for it?

The message is clear: Comply or die.

  • Disagree (-1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
11 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

He wasn't operating the car, which was safely parked.

It took the responding officer, and then some sort of DUI specialist 40 minutes and a series of field sobriety tests to decide that he should be placed under arrest for operating a vehicle long enough to move it from the drive-thru lane into a parking spot.

They could tell he was in some kind of mental distress, and he had informed at least one of them that he'd been visiting his mother's gravesite.

Both were bad choices.  

The officers should have been trained to known the effective range of that non-lethal weapon, and how to safely pursue someone carrying that non-lethal weapon. 

What about the gun he had concealed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Moderator T said:

1) The vehicle didn't teleport.  He drove it there.  Drunk.

2) The vehicle wasn't safely parked, it was in a drive through obstructing traffic.

3) Under the law if you're sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle, you're operating it.

4) Your expert opinion aside, he should have been arrested for the DUI by the officer (DUI specialist is a job you've invented and requiring it is nonsensical as all officers are trained in standardized field sobriety testing) that responded to the call.  The vehicle should then be towed or parked depending on what the property owner wanted.  The officers tried to arrest him.  However he made the choice to employ violence against them.

5) He was in mental distress because he knew he'd be going back to prison for violating parole.  Fun fact: I just found out on the news he was arrested in my area a couple months ago as a fugitive.  As for the "mother's gravesite" crap, people make up crap all the time to get sympathy.  You can't assume they're telling the truth.

6) A Taser is not "non-lethal."  A Taser is "less-lethal" and is considered lower on the continuum of force than a handgun.  Another fun fact: The prosecutor who's claiming that the Taser is not a deadly weapon in this case is the same prosecutor a couple weeks ago who charged 6 police officers for assaulting some college students.  In the press conference for that case he declares that the Taser is a Deadly Weapon under Georgia law.  

7) He was not just carrying the deadly weapon as you assert.  He used it.  You can clearly see him turn and fire it in the Wendy's surveillance video and can hear him fire it on the BWC video.

8.) The distress as you describe it is the emotional roller coaster of alcohol intoxication.  He was calm and collected one moment, then loud and belligerent the next, and then distraught the next.  They tried talking to him.  He then chose to use violence in an attempt to escape.  Hop on Youtube and look for video of various DUI arrests.  You'll witness people being totally cool then suddenly losing it and attacking the police or being belligerent.  Its a common side effect of alcohol or drug abuse.

9) They knew the range of the Taser.  However not everyone has the ability to judge precise distances without measuring tools while moving during a violent and rapidly evolving incident.   Even if the officers did have that magic power, it doesn't matter.  Sooner or later they'd need to close the distance to make the arrest.  There's no staying outside the range indefinitely here.  What's more, you're looking at the incident with the benefit of hindsight, something that is legally prohibited when judging police use of force.  It is the sort of reasoning that can't be used in court.

Very nicely stated Mod T. 

Too bad it will fall on deaf_ears because you didn't raise the dead man to sainthood simply because he was black.

ETA:  I don't think the officer should have shot him in the back and I wish he would have used more restraint because the actual threat to anyone was minimal, IMO.  But as you point out in the bold above, neither I nor the law can hold the officer to that standard.

Edited by JerryL
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 hour ago, Moderator T said:

1) The vehicle didn't teleport.  He drove it there.  Drunk.

2) The vehicle wasn't safely parked, it was in a drive through obstructing traffic.

3) Under the law if you're sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle, you're operating it.

4) Your expert opinion aside, he should have been arrested for the DUI by the officer (DUI specialist is a job you've invented and requiring it is nonsensical as all officers are trained in standardized field sobriety testing) that responded to the call.  The vehicle should then be towed or parked depending on what the property owner wanted.  The officers tried to arrest him.  However he made the choice to employ violence against them.

5) He was in mental distress because he knew he'd be going back to prison for violating parole.  Fun fact: I just found out on the news he was arrested in my area a couple months ago as a fugitive.  As for the "mother's gravesite" crap, people make up crap all the time to get sympathy.  You can't assume they're telling the truth.

6) A Taser is not "non-lethal."  A Taser is "less-lethal" and is considered lower on the continuum of force than a handgun.  Another fun fact: The prosecutor who's claiming that the Taser is not a deadly weapon in this case is the same prosecutor a couple weeks ago who charged 6 police officers for assaulting some college students.  In the press conference for that case he declares that the Taser is a Deadly Weapon under Georgia law.  

7) He was not just carrying the deadly weapon as you assert.  He used it.  You can clearly see him turn and fire it in the Wendy's surveillance video and can hear him fire it on the BWC video.

8.) The distress as you describe it is the emotional roller coaster of alcohol intoxication.  He was calm and collected one moment, then loud and belligerent the next, and then distraught the next.  They tried talking to him.  He then chose to use violence in an attempt to escape.  Hop on Youtube and look for video of various DUI arrests.  You'll witness people being totally cool then suddenly losing it and attacking the police or being belligerent.  Its a common side effect of alcohol or drug abuse.

9) They knew the range of the Taser.  However not everyone has the ability to judge precise distances without measuring tools while moving during a violent and rapidly evolving incident.   Even if the officers did have that magic power, it doesn't matter.  Sooner or later they'd need to close the distance to make the arrest.  There's no staying outside the range indefinitely here.  What's more, you're looking at the incident with the benefit of hindsight, something that is legally prohibited when judging police use of force.  It is the sort of reasoning that can't be used in court.

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

But as Jerry pointed out immediately above, it will fall on deaf ears. T_G manages to prove himself ignorant on virtually all subjects, but especially so when it comes to legal issues.

:shrug:

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
3 hours ago, That_Guy said:

He wasn't operating the car, which was safely parked.

It took the responding officer, and then some sort of DUI specialist 40 minutes and a series of field sobriety tests to decide that he should be placed under arrest for operating a vehicle long enough to move it from the drive-thru lane into a parking spot.

They could tell he was in some kind of mental distress, and he had informed at least one of them that he'd been visiting his mother's gravesite.

Both were bad choices.  

The officers should have been trained to known the effective range of that non-lethal weapon, and how to safely pursue someone carrying that non-lethal weapon. 

First point: It doesn't matter. The laws state drunk behind the wheel.

Second point.  So how long should it take, professor?

Third point: irrelevant.  Pathetic sob story

Fourth: Armchair policing, eh?

Fifth: Same.  armchair police lecturing the world on how the police should do their jobs is as idiotic as armchair warriors lecturing our troops on how to handle being under attack by plainclothes terrorists.  Translation: you're talking out of your ass

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
1 hour ago, Moderator T said:

1) The vehicle didn't teleport.  He drove it there.  Drunk.

2) The vehicle wasn't safely parked, it was in a drive through obstructing traffic.

3) Under the law if you're sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle, you're operating it.

4) Your expert opinion aside, he should have been arrested for the DUI by the officer (DUI specialist is a job you've invented and requiring it is nonsensical as all officers are trained in standardized field sobriety testing) that responded to the call.  The vehicle should then be towed or parked depending on what the property owner wanted.  The officers tried to arrest him.  However he made the choice to employ violence against them.

5) He was in mental distress because he knew he'd be going back to prison for violating parole.  Fun fact: I just found out on the news he was arrested in my area a couple months ago as a fugitive.  As for the "mother's gravesite" crap, people make up crap all the time to get sympathy.  You can't assume they're telling the truth.

6) A Taser is not "non-lethal."  A Taser is "less-lethal" and is considered lower on the continuum of force than a handgun.  Another fun fact: The prosecutor who's claiming that the Taser is not a deadly weapon in this case is the same prosecutor a couple weeks ago who charged 6 police officers for assaulting some college students.  In the press conference for that case he declares that the Taser is a Deadly Weapon under Georgia law.  

7) He was not just carrying the deadly weapon as you assert.  He used it.  You can clearly see him turn and fire it in the Wendy's surveillance video and can hear him fire it on the BWC video.

8.) The distress as you describe it is the emotional roller coaster of alcohol intoxication.  He was calm and collected one moment, then loud and belligerent the next, and then distraught the next.  They tried talking to him.  He then chose to use violence in an attempt to escape.  Hop on Youtube and look for video of various DUI arrests.  You'll witness people being totally cool then suddenly losing it and attacking the police or being belligerent.  Its a common side effect of alcohol or drug abuse.

9) They knew the range of the Taser.  However not everyone has the ability to judge precise distances without measuring tools while moving during a violent and rapidly evolving incident.   Even if the officers did have that magic power, it doesn't matter.  Sooner or later they'd need to close the distance to make the arrest.  There's no staying outside the range indefinitely here.  What's more, you're looking at the incident with the benefit of hindsight, something that is legally prohibited when judging police use of force.  It is the sort of reasoning that can't be used in court.

Game, set, match.

QED

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
9 hours ago, Moderator T said:

1) The vehicle didn't teleport.  He drove it there.  Drunk.

2) The vehicle wasn't safely parked, it was in a drive through obstructing traffic.

3) Under the law if you're sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle, you're operating it.

4) Your expert opinion aside, he should have been arrested for the DUI by the officer (DUI specialist is a job you've invented and requiring it is nonsensical as all officers are trained in standardized field sobriety testing) that responded to the call.  The vehicle should then be towed or parked depending on what the property owner wanted.  The officers tried to arrest him.  However he made the choice to employ violence against them.

5) He was in mental distress because he knew he'd be going back to prison for violating parole.  Fun fact: I just found out on the news he was arrested in my area a couple months ago as a fugitive.  As for the "mother's gravesite" crap, people make up crap all the time to get sympathy.  You can't assume they're telling the truth.

6) A Taser is not "non-lethal."  A Taser is "less-lethal" and is considered lower on the continuum of force than a handgun.  Another fun fact: The prosecutor who's claiming that the Taser is not a deadly weapon in this case is the same prosecutor a couple weeks ago who charged 6 police officers for assaulting some college students.  In the press conference for that case he declares that the Taser is a Deadly Weapon under Georgia law.  

7) He was not just carrying the deadly weapon as you assert.  He used it.  You can clearly see him turn and fire it in the Wendy's surveillance video and can hear him fire it on the BWC video.

8.) The distress as you describe it is the emotional roller coaster of alcohol intoxication.  He was calm and collected one moment, then loud and belligerent the next, and then distraught the next.  They tried talking to him.  He then chose to use violence in an attempt to escape.  Hop on Youtube and look for video of various DUI arrests.  You'll witness people being totally cool then suddenly losing it and attacking the police or being belligerent.  Its a common side effect of alcohol or drug abuse.

9) They knew the range of the Taser.  However not everyone has the ability to judge precise distances without measuring tools while moving during a violent and rapidly evolving incident.   Even if the officers did have that magic power, it doesn't matter.  Sooner or later they'd need to close the distance to make the arrest.  There's no staying outside the range indefinitely here.  What's more, you're looking at the incident with the benefit of hindsight, something that is legally prohibited when judging police use of force.  It is the sort of reasoning that can't be used in court.

Clearly, you haven't watched Devin Brosnan's body cam footage very closely, so any discussion of the actual facts of Rayshard Brooks' murder is pointless until you do.

  • Disagree (-1) 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...