Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[Leonhard]

Source: Atlanta Police officer who killed Rayshard Brooks charged with felony murder

After shooting Brooks, Rolfe said "I got him" and kicked him, and Brosnan then stood on Brooks' shoulder, Howard said. The officers did not provide medical aid to Brooks for more than two minutes after he was shot, Howard said.

© Copyright Original Source

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/17/u...day/index.html

If that report is accurate then it is disturbing.

[Whateverman]

We reaped what we sowed.

The quality of the last few elections, quite frankly, was a very loud warning that all was not well. The last one was ridiculous...a many-divorced man with manners that matched his mouth, versus a woman with *extremely* sketchy political career including Benghazi (and a husband with his own bad reputation, but never mind that).

And we are suffering from the consequences of a Speaker of the House threatened by her own reelection. Her distraction is making her behave in ways that don't sit well with anybody least of all her own party. It's aggravating all the problems we're having.

The media is having a huge feeding frenzy on all the crisis that fermented out of all this. Media will always do this BECAUSE IT SELLS. The results may be deadly even to the media. Remember Lady Diana.

Now another election, and again we reap what we sow.

We need to repent of our actions that led to those failures, pray for the healing of the Christian community, and deal with the harvest we got right now and try again with the next.

Thanks again for a frank and introspective response :)

[myth]

As to the OP:

The policeman who shot Brooks in the back has been charged with 11 counts, including felony murder.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/ra...day/index.html

In the announcement of the charges, a photo taken from another video is showed to justify one of the charges.

After shooting Brooks while fleeing, Rolfe (the ex-officer charged) proclaimed "I got him!" and then proceeded to kick him as he lay there on the ground. He also was charged with not rendering timely medical aid as he left him to die on the asphalt. This officer also hit a van in the drive through line, endangering 3 passengers in that van.

This is what the Black community knows and sees all to often that is covered over all to often as white people speculate about the best possible motives for these events with a hidden, perhaps even unconscious expectation that because the person shot was black, they were more than likely 'up to no good', as we saw for 120+ pages in the Arbery thread.

There is often true malice, true abuse taking place. The black community knows it is there, and that it happens all too often. And that is why they do not speculate about how these offices might be justified like we white folk do, but often first assume the worst. Because they have seen it all too often.

This is why we are still seeing protests around Floyd's death. It is too much a part of life in a america if one is a Black person.

And it must change.

I'm not sure what you're talking about the kicking him on the ground, since the video I watched didn't have that. I will point out, however, that the BLM/liberal crowd often assume the WORST possible motives for the officer, and entirely without basis for doing so. In this case, and indeed most, we don't have to assume the person was "up to no good", we can just watch the video and see crimes they're committing. The killing of George Floyd was clearly wrong....but since it started more of these BLM protests, I'm still waiting to hear how or why anyone thinks racism is involved. And with Breonna Taylor, how is that racism? The short answer is, that whether these incidents are or are not fueled by racism, we simply don't have any evidence that they were. But by all means, continue to call people racist because it makes you feel better.

And about Mr. Arbery, didn't video show him trespassing on the defendants' friend's property before the shooting? You know, like they alleged about him committing property crimes? I'm not very informed on that case, just asking.

[Mountain Man]

As to the OP:

The policeman who shot Brooks in the back has been charged with 11 counts, including felony murder.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/ra...day/index.html

Sounds like another case of an overzealous prosecutor way overcharging in order to appease the "community".

[myth]

This is a difficult one for me. It's not a clear case of racial discrimination - but it's a fact that the officer and the public didn't appear to be in any danger when Brooks was shot. That by itself is pretty damning...

On the other side, though, is the fact that Brooks resisted arrest and stole the officer's (non-lethal) weapon. In a struggle like that, I have to imagine that the officer gets some small credit for having to make split-second decisions. I don't think this is (or will be) enough to render the officer innocent of having committed some crime; I've heard involuntary man-slaughter being tossed around as a possible indictment...

Not only is it not a "clear" case of racial discrimination, it's not a case of racial discrimination at all, since there's zero evidence of racial discrimination been uncovered (or at least made public). The whole interaction is respectful on both ends until things go sideways.

[myth]

Then why is their use still allowed?

Because they actually reduce the chance of injury overall, and because death as a result of taser deployment is a statistically rare event, usually resulting for two reasons: (1) injuries created by a fall after taser use and (2) underlying heart conditions with imperfect deployment.

[myth]

The deceased passed every single test excepting the breathalizer which was a teany bit over the limit, of which he admitted to having a couple of drinks. Stop defending the cop just because he's a cop, he shot the guy in the back with no good reason for doing so. He murdered him, period.

Please explain to me which certifications you hold for Standardized Field Sobriety testing, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, Drug Recognition Expert, anything along those lines. Otherwise, I doubt you have any idea what you're looking at in the video.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure what you're talking about the kicking him on the ground, since the video I watched didn't have that.

I was curious about that myself. CNN just sort of asserts it without offering any evidence to support it.

As for ox's take on the Arbery case, you have to keep an eye on him because he likes to downplay or ignore facts that don't fit his preferred narrative. For instance, he says (referring to the officer), "After shooting Brooks while fleeing," which (I suspect deliberately) leaves out the critical detail that Brooks was shot because he turned and pointed a weapon at the officers.

[Whateverman]

Not only is it not a "clear" case of racial discrimination, it's not a case of racial discrimination at all, since there's zero evidence of racial discrimination been uncovered (or at least made public). The whole interaction is respectful on both ends until things go sideways.

You understand that racism doesn't always manifest as overt animosity towards the person of the "wrong" race, right? Racism can involve traffic stops which target one race more than another, without any data showing that those people broke traffic laws more than others. Racism can be subtle.

So - was there any evidence of racism in this case? Not persuasive, no - but the easy use of deadly force when there was no apparent need for it is definitely consistent with racist trends in law enforcement. The incident has plenty of similarities with other police shootings which have been labeled correctly as racist.

The details will come out in court, so I'm not prejudging anything - but I believe it's false to say there was no evidence that racism played a part in this deadly shooting.

[myth]

It's murder, pure and simple. The guy posed no threat, was running away and was shot in the back. No reason for that whatsoever. They were there talking to the guy for a half hour, he was very polite and sober and made the wrong decision in trying to flee, but they had all his information and could have easily tracked him down, instead the cop took it upon himself to break police rules on the use of lethal force and murdered the man. Why?

Several points:

(1) Not murder. Manslaughter at the worst, and probably that's not provable.

(2) The man deployed a tazer at an officer after physically assaulting another officer and taking his tazer. So that's DWI, resisting arrest, assault on a government official, common law robbery, and attempted assault on a government official.

(3)I would assume you know a tazer is designed to incapacitate individuals, but your posting here indicates that you do not. So the man has demonstrated his desire to harm officers by assaulting them, committing all of the above crimes (probably a few more I haven't thought of), and now he's discharging such a weapon at an officer. He has proven his desire and ability to steal weapons from the officer and use them. Doing some that would incapacitate the officer CREATES a deadly force situation in which any officer would reasonably fear for his life and the safety of the public in general. After all, a resonable person won't be assaulting the police and running from them, so we can hardly assume the suspect here is reasonable and wouldn't use the gun to kill the officer and then steal a car, harming someone else in the process. And that leads us to....

(4) Many taser have a backup air cartridge that is attached to the handle, and some of the newer models actually have "double" air cartridges that can be fired twice without reloading. It is not a safe assumption that once the taser has been deployed, it cannot be deployed again.

(5) The taser is also capable of operating in "drive-stun" mode after the air cartridge has been deployed.

(6) The officer has the legal authority and responsibility to arrest this violent criminal, and now tackling the criminal is even more dangerous because of the taser, which he has demonstrated an intent and ability to use.

(7) All the videos I've seen have edited the actual shooting out, but the description I've heard from the NY Times (liberal enough for you?) basically characterized the reaction time between the suspect shooting the tazer and then being shot as crazy fast (I forgot the words he used, "microsecond" or something like that). I imagine that based on rapid speed at which these events occurred, once the officer decided to fire his weapon, his brain didn't even have time to process that the tazer had already been fire. At that point his mind was probably still reacting to the initial presentation of the tazer.

Given all of the above, I don't see how any prosecutor can make an effective case for criminal intent. But I don't guess that matters when you're a liberal spreading your fictional narrative in an attempt to scrounge up votes and make everyone bask in the glow of your alleged moral superiority.

[JimL]

Please explain to me which certifications you hold for Standardized Field Sobriety testing, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, Drug Recognition Expert, anything along those lines. Otherwise, I doubt you have any idea what you're looking at in the video.

Yeah, except for the fact that his having passed all but the breathalizer test, which was just a bit above the legal limit, is on the record.

[myth]

You understand that racism doesn't always manifest as overt animosity towards the person of the "wrong" race, right? Racism can involve traffic stops which target one race more than another, without any data showing that those people broke traffic laws more than others. Racism can be subtle.

So - was there any evidence of racism in this case? Not persuasive, no - but the easy use of deadly force when there was no apparent need for it is definitely consistent with racist trends in law enforcement. The incident has plenty of similarities with other police shootings which have been labeled correctly as racist.

The details will come out in court, so I'm not prejudging anything - but I believe it's false to say there was no evidence that racism played a part in this deadly shooting.

You are aware that correlation is not causation, correct? There is scant evidence of racist trends in law enforcement (recently), one has to confuse correlation and causation to arrive at that conclusion.

Also, let's talk about the definition of racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

So if the police are targeting a person of color for any other reason than that person's membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, it's not racism. In the instant case, the police were there because the business called. Therefore, no evidence of racism.

But let's take it further, because I'm fairly certain this is where you'll take the argument: why is that people think the arrest rates across all racial/ethnic groups should be proportional to their size in the general population? I'm not looking for "it's obvious" answers, I'm looking for a rational and logical basis to justify the assumption, since this seems to be one of the core assumptions people make when they look at statistics and claim racism is involved.

[myth]

Yeah, except for the fact that his having passed all but the breathalizer test, which was just a bit above the legal limit, is on the record.

What record?

[Mountain Man]

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...yshard-brooks/

It seems Howard staged his press conference without even bothering to inform or consult Georgia's lead investigative agency.

[myth]

Yeah, except for the fact that his having passed all but the breathalizer test, which was just a bit above the legal limit, is on the record.

Oh my, I'm really waiting for this one. The very first test the officer did was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. That body cam video is not good enough or angled correctly to see if he passed that test or not. The HGN is probably the most accurate of the field sobriety tests, and it's not uncommon to arrest based mostly (not entirely) on that one test if the subject has leg/mobility problems and cannot complete the other tests. I'm certified to do the HGN test, and I'm telling you the only person who was close enough to see those test results was the officer doing the test.

Additionally, Brooks displays classic drunk verbal behavior, refusing to answer the actual questions, frequent verbal detours, asking for the test instructions to be repeated, and repeating 'justifications' for his present circumstances that have no bearing on the situation at hand. Also, the next test if the Walk and Turn Test...and the video I'm watching, you CAN'T EVEN SEE HIS FEET....which, by the way, is where most of the "clues" come in...like stepping off the line, not stepping heel-to-toe, improper turn, etc. Can't see his feet in the One Leg Stand test, either. whoever told you he passed all the field sobriety tests is either omniscient, or lying.

Lol...my favorite, "On a scale from one to ten, with one being completely sober, and ten being very impaired, how do you feel?" Answer: "I'm ten, I'm very impaired." Granted, he walked that back because apparently in his drunken state he didn't know what 'impaired' meant. He doesn't even know what road he's on, or where his hotel is in relation to where he is.