Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[Mountain Man]

Most of it is basic common sense, like don't be confrontational and spoiling for a fight.

I love his first tip: "Obey the law. Laws are like hints, like when somebody says, 'Man, I wouldn't do that [blank] if I were you!'"

[JimL]

Armed with a firearm? An escaped violent convict? In either of those cases yes.

A man running away from a DUI arrest, armed with a tazer? No. I don't find shooting him necessary or right in the slightest.

It's not only not necessary or right, it's against the law regardless of what Myth says about it being legal in his state. The SCOTUS ruled on that in 1985 making it illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect unless he reasonably posed a danger to the officer or others.

[Mountain Man]

The SCOTUS ruled on that in 1985 making it illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect unless he reasonably posed a danger to the officer or others.

You mean like pointing a weapon at his pursuers?

[myth]

It's not only not necessary or right, it's against the law regardless of what Myth says about it being legal in his state. The SCOTUS ruled on that in 1985 making it illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect unless he reasonably posed a danger to the officer or others.

And since he did pose a danger to the officer and others when the officer made the decision to shoot, it was a legal shooting. Did you read my comment earlier? Our prosecutor's office agrees with me that it was a legal shoot. Also, as I pointed out earlier, the US Supreme Court defined the objectiveness reasonable standard in police use of force scenarios to be that of a reasonable police officer. I work in a building full of police officers who think it was a legal shooting, and unless you have your head in the sand, you'll have noticed cops all over the place think it was a legal shoot. So, by logical extension....it was a legal shoot.

You are unable to explain how a violent person intending to use a taser has NOT created a deadly force situation. You've declined my invitations to debate thus far, but maybe I'll catch you in a particular moment of lucidity and you'll give it a go. Keep in mind, you'll be arguing against the thrust of arguments from police use of force trainers. These are educated and trained professionals with decades of experience who instruct in the dynamics of use of force training, so you'll be arguing against their professional opinion. So tie up those shoe laces up and argue against a group of professional about the subject matter they've studied their entire life. Or, you know....don't (since you consistently choose this option). Continue to sit there spouting your ignorant opinion that you can't back up with facts, reason, or logic.

It's ignorant sheep like you who are contributing to this cantankerous and politicized division in our nation. You believe what you see as long as it confirms your world view, and don't engage in a critical analysis of any of it. You're spewing hatred of police and parroting the party line, but you can't even explain your beliefs. It's not really your fault, you've been feed so much polarizing left-wing information that it's easier to just believe it.

If you're here to defend your beliefs or change our minds, then take advantage of the opportunity. I've been active in this thread, made long and articulate arguments for my point of view, but it's like pulling teeth to get a substantial response of any of you on the other side of this argument. Even when Ox does respond, he ignores 90% of what I've said and then basically insults me and repeats what he originally said. Your argumentative techniques are basically the same. So engage me in this discussion, let's see what we can learn from each other.

Otherwise, I'll chalk this thread up in the "Myth wins, because none of his debate partners could even address the points he raised and had to resort to insults and repeating liberal talking points".

[myth]

Since you are so sure that he was kicked can you please show us the evidence that convinced you?

He won't. I've asked him multiple times and the best he can come up with is that I'm crazy and paranoid, followed by basically: "but, but DA Howard said it!" I actually came here looking to have nice debate about this, but I should have known better. As soon as a substantial challenge to their ideas is presented it's two responses: (1) crickets, or else (2) insult the opponent and then repeat the claim. It's almost like they don't realize, that they're making the claim that the shooting was unjustified -- so the buren of proof is on them. They made some initial arguments that weren't bad, but I presented arguments against their point of view. And they aren't even trying to combat my argument. Oh well, I should have known this was more about verbal virtuosity and insulting people they don't like than actually trying to have a debate.

[rogue06]

Otherwise, I'll chalk this thread up in the "Myth wins, because none of his debate partners could even address the points he raised and had to resort to insults and repeating liberal talking points".

bacon.


You may have won the debate with these guys but I just won the entire thread in accordance with Jed's Law.

[myth]

Ok, I'm not an Officer. But, I am hunter. By far the animals I hunt most are deer and feral hogs. I was trained that after they are down, when you walk up to them, you always poke them or nudge them with your foot in the backside to make sure they don't get a sudden burst and get up and badly hurt you. I don't know if that's a normal thing for officers but someone who has fought hard could be faking, or not seriously injured, could take the legs out and get control of the gun. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a nudge to be mistaken (or overblown) for a kick

I've seen that occasionally, and it was really situation-ally specific. It's not really part of any training that I experienced. Personally, I've mostly done that when I think the person's dead or passed out drunk, when for some reason I didn't want to get down onto the ground with them. Quick nudge with the boot, if they shout or respond you have an idea of what you're going to do next, right? If no response, you're gonna have to kneel and check for a pulse. Then you go from there. I'm not really sure what the reason for a boot nudge would be in this case, unless it was habit.

The legs are an issue, if you're going to get down on the ground with them. In someone who is not badly wounded, you definitely have to control legs cause they'll try to kick and sweep your legs out from under you. Even if you've shot someone, they don't immediately die and might continue to fight (see some pretty crazy videos). So they were likely looking to handcuff him first, then search for weapons, then render aid. But hey, Mr. District Attorney down in Atlanta has charged with him a crime for a 2 minute 12 second delay in rendering aid. As if they should have ignored their own training and experience, then worked cognitively through what happened to process what they actually need to do (remember, the hormones flooding your system during an event like this actually make it difficult to think. That's why we train to make certain high stress actions habit -- because it requires less thought if you have muscle memory developed).

[myth]

bacon.


You may have won the debate with these guys but I just won the entire thread in accordance with Jed's Law.

Fair point, good sir. Always gotta keep the primary goal (bacon) in mind. I've won the battle and lost the war. :(

[Cow Poke]

You said that, seeing what you've seen, you wouldn't have shot him. With respect to what you've seen, why wouldn't you have shot him?

Because:
A) I wasn't there
2) I don't know what all happened "off camera"
C) I haven't really studied the situation all that much
D) I like to have all the facts before coming to a conclusion.

Even if the facts don't support any predetermined narrative.

That's why.

[RumTumTugger]

yep, you read that correctly. Put up or shut up Ox. Where's your proof it even happened...much less where it happened as you laid out. I would love to see how many times you pulled the trigger and how many times you were shot in the shoot don't shoot simulation. Arm chair quarterbacks like you who have no real world experience in these things disgust me. So, I disgust you and you disgust me. I'm Ok with that.

He can't because the DA was lying why else would he just show a still of the supposed Video instead of the Video because he can't it shows something different. infact here's a someoen showing a video that contradicts the DA. start at the 4:46 mark if you don't want to go through the whole video but watch.

one wonders what else e is lying about.

[JimL]

Because:
A) I wasn't there
2) I don't know what all happened "off camera"
C) I haven't really studied the situation all that much
D) I like to have all the facts before coming to a conclusion.

Even if the facts don't support any predetermined narrative.

That's why.

Not an answer to my question, but not surprised by your dishonesty.

[JimL]

And since he did pose a danger to the officer and others when the officer made the decision to shoot, it was a legal shooting. Did you read my comment earlier? Our prosecutor's office agrees with me that it was a legal shoot. Also, as I pointed out earlier, the US Supreme Court defined the objectiveness reasonable standard in police use of force scenarios to be that of a reasonable police officer. I work in a building full of police officers who think it was a legal shooting, and unless you have your head in the sand, you'll have noticed cops all over the place think it was a legal shoot. So, by logical extension....it was a legal shoot.

And therein lies the problem. Apparently you and many of your fellow officers have little regard for human life, and that lack of regard seems to be more prevelant when it comes to black lives.

[oxmixmudd]

Since you are so sure that he was kicked can you please show us the evidence that convinced you?

The evidence that he was kicked that I am aware of - so far - is the the still from the video the DA presented.

However, that is in fact irrelevant to my question.

I'm not replying to littlejohn's post with an assumption one way or the other about whether there is rock solid evidence for the kick. I'm asking if we really are going to try to come up with reasons why a kick might have been justified. And that question is an independent element rogue. Orthogonal to the actual truth or falsity of whether the officer actually kicked brooks.

[oxmixmudd]

yep, you read that correctly. Put up or shut up Ox. Where's your proof it even happened...much less where it happened as you laid out. I would love to see how many times you pulled the trigger and how many times you were shot in the shoot don't shoot simulation. Arm chair quarterbacks like you who have no real world experience in these things disgust me. So, I disgust you and you disgust me. I'm Ok with that.

I could care less if my question disgusts you littlejoe. It's a valid question, and, as I told rogue, the question is independent of whether the kick actually happened. Let me help you by rewording it a tad to remove any elements that might be making you think the two are somehow linked:

Are you really going to try to come up with reasons way an officer might have been justified kicking a man that was just shot and lay bleeding on the ground?

[oxmixmudd]

You mean like pointing a weapon at his pursuers?

It was not a lethal weapon MM. It was not a gun.