Another black man shot and killed by US police, but is this another George Floyd incident?

I dont think so.

Everyone knows how George Floyd was slowly killed by a US cop, he was defencless and pleaded with the cop to get off him he couldn't breathe.

In this incident, the man was asleep in his car in a food drivethrough entrance forcing other cars to drive round him. When police were called they couldn't rouse him at first, then when they did and he was breathalised he was over the limit.

It progressed to the man resisting arrest, grabbing the cops taser running off, turning and pointing the taser at the cop....just what was that policeman to do?
What are they trained to do in a situation like this? stand there and be tasered??




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53052077

The officer has so far been sacked, the restaurant where the incident took place has been burned down by protestors.


"Protesters have burned down the Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta where a black man was shot by police as he tried to escape arrest, and blocked a major highway in the city.
Rayshard Brooks, 27, was shot dead on Friday night after police were called to the restaurant over reports that he had fallen asleep in the drive-through line.
The incident, which was caught on video, looked set to fuel more nationwide demonstrations about the treatment of African Americans by police in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis."





https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/14/rayshard-brooks-shooting-protesters-set-fire-to-restaurant-where-black-man-shot-dead

What's the Restaurant got to do with it ?

Not much, obviously these people are losing logical thoughts in their haste to vent.

Syl wrote:What are they trained to do in a situation like this? stand there and be tasered??

A taser is a toy compared to a .45.  The raw facts are: a man was murdered for sleeping (possibly intoxicated) inside a vehicle.  Ultimately, he tried to run. Has no one understood excessive force?  You don’t shoot people who are simply running away…especially, with good reason.  (Blacks who end up in southern jails, tend to be hanged…remember Sandra Bland?)

So, the crime is asleep in a car.   If we are going to kill everyone who over-imbibes and falls asleep, we might as well start at Thanksgiving Dinner, with every Uncle Charlie/Bob/Tom/Harry who ever attended.

Note, once again, it happened in the south, to a black man.  Hello...can anyone spell racism?  This is what every city is seeing mass protests for.  The downfall of civilized society will be because some people think they are special, and they are privileged to kill others.

I think he was ultimately shot not because he was asleep in his car, not because he was intoxicated, not because he ran away, but because he grabbed the taser and aimed it at the cop, who shot him before the man could imobolise him with the taser.

Obviously in this country the outcome would be different because the majority of our police dont carry guns.  
Yours do, and the outcome is this......and I do wonder if the man had been white, would the outcome have been the same?

Which brings me back to the question....what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?

Syl wrote:I think he was ultimately shot not because he was asleep in his car, not because he was intoxicated, not because he ran away, but because he grabbed the taser and aimed it at the cop, who shot him before the man could imobolise him with the taser.

Not very persuasive.  A taser is a toy.  The cop knew it was a taser cause it had just been wrested away from him.  He knew it posed no threat.

Furthermore, look at the distance.  A taser is intended to be used up close.  Brooks was 25-35 feet away.  A taser poses no threat at that distance.

Ahah...but a .45 handgun does.  The cop knew it, too.  It was a cold-blooded murder.  The police in this country are very close to prompting another civil war.  You look at these crowds around the country, in every city, and all it takes is one spark.

The taser is classed as a firearm...


This man was properly fighting with the 2 cops and swinging punches while rolling round on the ground with them...


He had grabbed this taser during the struggle and while running off he turned to fire it at the cops who were chasing him...

Being in the legal business I thought you may know the answer to the question Quill...

"what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?"

Tommy Monk wrote:The taser is classed as a firearm...

In America, the taser is classified as a non-lethal tool to aid in subduing a suspect.  Very much like handcuffs.

Quill lying again...


"...look at the distance. A taser is intended to be used up close. Brooks was 25-35 feet away. A taser poses no threat at that distance..."


Bullshit... He was only about 6 ft in front of the cop chasing him when he turned and fired the taser at the cop...


And given the level of violence he attacked the cops with while resisting arrest... And then the fact that he had not only grabbed the taser out of the cops belt... But also actually tried to shoot the cop with it...


I don't think the cop was wrong to have shot him!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The taser is classed as a firearm...

In America, the taser is classified as a non-lethal tool to aid in subduing a suspect.  Very much like handcuffs.

Here in UK, tasers and other similar devices are classed as firearms...

Syl wrote:Being in the legal business I thought you may know the answer to the question Quill...

"what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?"

Good question Syl...!


Quill will either ignore this question or bend over backwards to avoid admitting that the cop was totally justified in shooting at the criminal...!

Syl wrote:Being in the legal business I thought you may know the answer to the question Quill...

"what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?"

The police are taught to pursue a suspect and apprehend him/her, if they can. Whether that means involving a firearm is dependent on the laws surrounding use of a firearm.

Use of a firearm is governed by laws on use of deadly force. One is authorized to use deadly force only if it is apparent that your own life, or the life of another is threatened. Threatened property does not justify use of deadly force.

If someone nicks a taser, it is the same as if someone nicks some handcuffs or keys. You give chase as far as you can, and if you cannot apprehend him/her then you resort to other means.

In this situation, the whole thing could have been accomplished by peaceful means. You have the automobile, and his name is on the registration. If he slips away, you go to his home and wait for him to come home. What could be easier?

Instead, the cop decided to end a life just to salve his wounded ego. This is the police crime that always happens: the cop gets his ego involved, and the whole thing escalates. Police are taught to sublimate their egos, and always de-escalate the situation.

Those cops that cannot do this, should be identified on a police offenders list, for the same reason we have a sexual offenders list: something in their psychological make-up makes them a danger to society. They must be removed.

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill lying again...

"...look at the distance. A taser is intended to be used up close. Brooks was 25-35 feet away. A taser poses no threat at that distance..."

Bullshit... He was only about 6 ft in front of the cop chasing him when he turned and fired the taser at the cop...

And given the level of violence he attacked the cops with while resisting arrest... And then the fact that he had not only grabbed the taser out of the cops belt... But also actually tried to shoot the cop with it...

I don't think the cop was wrong to have shot him!

Now, you've got your ego involved, tommy. Let the suspect run away if you can't catch him. Just go to his house and wait for him, arrest him, and haul him away. The answer is simple.

But the cop got his ego involved, and a life is now gone. How much is one's ego worth, anyway? It's the same frame of mind that causes some men to beat their wives. She does/says something, offends the ego, and so the violence ensues. On the other hand, there are many husbands who keep their ego out of it, and calmly, rationally look for a proper response.

We want those people who don't have touchy egos to stay in law enforcement, and we must identify those with sensitive egos and get rid of them. That's the path to better criminal justice.

Nothing to do with ego... It is all to do with the arresting a dangerous criminal...


What if the police just sat back and let everyone go after they fought against being arrested for crime...!?


Is that what you are advocating...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nothing to do with ego... It is all to do with the arresting a dangerous criminal...

What if the police just sat back and let everyone go after they fought against being arrested for crime...!?

Is that what you are advocating...!?

It's all ego, tommy. Look at your own use of adjectives: he's a "dangerous criminal". Hell, he fell asleep in a car. Haha...I shudder to think what damage that could cause! You know you've done that as well. Are you a "dangerous criminal?"

What I am advocating is the police should be smarter, not harder. Yes, "let everyone go" in lieu of an altercation. If you want to arrest him later, go to his house--tell his wife to tell him to come down to the precinct station to be processed. If any white man had done the same thing (in Atlanta, GA), you know he would be told less than that, to just park the car and sleep it off.

But no, because he's black (in Atlanta, GA) he had to be challenged, and egos got involved. Why did he run? Because blacks have a 50-50 chance of ending up dead in southern jails. Makes perfect sense to me that he would want to get his hat. The whole thing escalated because of sloppy police work.

Syl wrote:Being in the legal business I thought you may know the answer to the question Quill...

"what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?"

Why would you think that?

Do you really believe him?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Being in the legal business I thought you may know the answer to the question Quill...

"what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?"

Why would you think that?

Do you really believe him?

Southerners!

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Being in the legal business I thought you may know the answer to the question Quill...

"what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?"

Why would you think that?

Do you really believe him?

On forums no one can say for sure who is telling the truth about themselves and who lies. Some people are more credible than others, but who really knows?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Being in the legal business I thought you may know the answer to the question Quill...

"what are US police advised to do if someone (of whatever colour) nicks their taser and points it at them whilst running away from arrest?"

The police are taught to pursue a suspect and apprehend him/her, if they can.  Whether that means involving a firearm is dependent on the laws surrounding use of a firearm.

Use of a firearm is governed by laws on use of deadly force.  One is authorized to use deadly force only if it is apparent that your own life, or the life of another is threatened.  Threatened property does not justify use of deadly force.

If someone nicks a taser, it is the same as if someone nicks some handcuffs or keys.  You give chase as far as you can, and if you cannot apprehend him/her then you resort to other means.

In this situation, the whole thing could have been accomplished by peaceful means.  You have the automobile, and his name is on the registration.  If he slips away, you go to his home and wait for him to come home.  What could be easier?

Instead, the cop decided to end a life just to salve his wounded ego.  This is the police crime that always happens: the cop gets his ego involved, and the whole thing escalates.  Police are taught to sublimate their egos, and always de-escalate the situation.

Those cops that cannot do this, should be identified on a police offenders list, for the same reason we have a sexual offenders list: something in their psychological make-up makes them a danger to society.  They must be removed.

Snatching the cops taser and pointing it at the him  is obviously a threat with the  intention to use it, it's  not the same as nicking the officers handcuffs or keys.

This situation escalated because the man fought off the cop quite violently, grabbed his weapon and ran.

The man not the cop became violent, and i think if this had happened prior to the BLM outrage caused by  the police brutality against George Floyd, people would not be so quick to condemn this cop.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why would you think that?

Do you really believe him?

On forums no one can say for sure who is telling the truth about themselves and who lies. Some people are more credible than others, but who really knows?

You've been around the block a few times. You know. He has even lied about his age. You sniffed that out a few years ago.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
On forums no one can say for sure who is telling the truth about themselves and who lies. Some people are more credible than others, but who really knows?

You've been around the block a few times.  You know.  He has even lied about his age. You sniffed that out a few years ago.  

Lol......maybe he saw the abuse people get on forums  when they admit to their real age and decided to avoid all that by fibbing.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The police are taught to pursue a suspect and apprehend him/her, if they can. Whether that means involving a firearm is dependent on the laws surrounding use of a firearm.

Use of a firearm is governed by laws on use of deadly force. One is authorized to use deadly force only if it is apparent that your own life, or the life of another is threatened. Threatened property does not justify use of deadly force.

If someone nicks a taser, it is the same as if someone nicks some handcuffs or keys. You give chase as far as you can, and if you cannot apprehend him/her then you resort to other means.

In this situation, the whole thing could have been accomplished by peaceful means. You have the automobile, and his name is on the registration. If he slips away, you go to his home and wait for him to come home. What could be easier?

Instead, the cop decided to end a life just to salve his wounded ego. This is the police crime that always happens: the cop gets his ego involved, and the whole thing escalates. Police are taught to sublimate their egos, and always de-escalate the situation.

Those cops that cannot do this, should be identified on a police offenders list, for the same reason we have a sexual offenders list: something in their psychological make-up makes them a danger to society. They must be removed.

Snatching the cops taser and pointing it at the him is obviously a threat with the intention to use it, it's not the same as nicking the officers handcuffs or keys.

This situation escalated because the man fought off the cop quite violently, grabbed his weapon and ran.

The man not the cop became violent, and i think if this had happened prior to the BLM outrage caused by the police brutality against George Floyd, people would not be so quick to condemn this cop.

Nonsense. To claim that there was any justification for this homicide, is to make up porkies. A taser is a toy, and the cop knew it was a taser. This was a cold-blooded murder.

It's now known he actually fired the taser at the cop. I dont know much about firearms, but I do know if a person is hit by a taser it can render that person immobile for a time, it has also been the cause of many deaths in the US....(see link below)
Was the cop expected to  let this man run away with a dangerous weapon and stand back and do nothing?
Had he not fired at the cop he could have fired it at an innocent passer by.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-axon-taser-toll-idUSKCN1B21AH
22/08/2017 · WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
More than 1,000 people in the U.S. have died after police stunned them with Tasers, and the stun gun was ruled to be a cause or contributing factor in 153 of those deaths…

A "Taser is a toy" ,no it isn't, you wouldn't like one stuck in your Wedding Tackle !

I do wonder why police are trained to shoot to kill.
Surely some circumstances , like this one perhaps, would be better solved by shooting to stop.

Syl wrote:It's now known he actually fired the taser at the cop. I dont know much about firearms, but I do know if a person is hit by a taser it can render that person immobile for a time, it has also been the cause of many deaths in the US....(see link below)
Was the cop expected to  let this man run away with a dangerous weapon and stand back and do nothing?
Had he not fired at the cop he could have fired it at an innocent passer by.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-axon-taser-toll-idUSKCN1B21AH
22/08/2017 · WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
More than 1,000 people in the U.S. have died after police stunned them with Tasers, and the stun gun was ruled to be a cause or contributing factor in 153 of those deaths…

This man already took the cops taser... What if he had then tasered the cop and took his gun too...?

I know Tommy, and  that could have happened. The cop was thinking on his feet, it wasn't premeditated like the George Floyd killing.

This cop tried to reason with the man, even when he started fighting and struggling the cop was heard to tell him repeatedly to stop fighting. The cops webcam was knocked off his head, then he warned him he would be tasered if he continued to fight, and that's when it seems the man snatched the taser, ran away, turned round at the cop who was in pursuit  and fired at him...he missed.

The full video of what led up to the shooting is here.

nicko wrote: A "Taser is a toy" ,no it isn't, you wouldn't like one stuck in your Wedding Tackle !

Yes, it's a toy when compared to a .45. It's a non-lethal tool used to subdue a person. The officer was drawing it to attempt to use it on Brooks, when it was wrested away. If you say it is so lethal, the implication is the cop was trying to kill Brooks earlier.

It's much ado about nothing.

Tommy Monk wrote:This man already took the cops taser... What if he had then tasered the cop and took his gun too...?

First, Brooks was 25-35 feet away, and running from the police. Does he have 35-foot arms? He had gotten away and he wasn't going back for anything.

Second, suppositions and 'what if's' are not arguments. They are imaginings. I can do that too: What if Brooks were an alien, and he was trying to warn the cops about a pending invasion from Mars? It's silly to even go there.

A .45?

Never seen a cop carry one of those. They carry .40 and 9mm because the .45 has a single stack magazine which limits their capacity.  

Hey, yall keep asking this fool for his opinion on things.  

Syl wrote:I know Tommy, and  that could have happened. The cop was thinking on his feet, it wasn't premeditated like the George Floyd killing.

This cop tried to reason with the man, even when he started fighting and struggling the cop was heard to tell him repeatedly to stop fighting. The cops webcam was knocked off his head, then he warned him he would be tasered if he continued to fight, and that's when it seems the man snatched the taser, ran away, turned round at the cop who was in pursuit  and fired at him...he missed.

The cop wasn't thinking, and that is the point. Realistically, he was responding viscerally, and there are two things to say about that. First, his visceral response was to engage his ego, just as wife-beaters often do. There's a better than 50-50 chance this cop has a record of spousal abuse, as this appears to be his response to any adversity.

Second, a person who engages his ego, rather that his thoughts, does not belong on any police force in the nation. If reform comes, this is the central problem. Cops are not warriors, but conflict problem solvers. Yet cities and counties have recruited, and problem cops have gravitated toward combat, until our police forces (18,000 of them in the US) are filled with combat-minded personalities.

We've got to weed these people out. The difference between police and the military is the clientele they serve. Soldiers salute Generals. Police salute the citizens, and the clientele of the police are the citizens--in a democracy, their employers--not enemy combatants. The challenge confronting police is conflict-resolution and problem solving. You can't shoot your clientele and solve the problem.

That is core to the slogan, Defund the Police. That means a re-prioritizing of resources so that we are not hiring blind combatants, but social workers with capabilities. Until that day, the police will always look upon citizens as the enemy.

Maddog wrote:A .45?

Never seen a cop carry one of those. They carry .40 and 9mm because the .45 has a single stack magazine which limits their capacity.  

Hey, yall keep asking this fool for his opinion on things.  

As usual, Red...you miss the point.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I know Tommy, and  that could have happened. The cop was thinking on his feet, it wasn't premeditated like the George Floyd killing.

This cop tried to reason with the man, even when he started fighting and struggling the cop was heard to tell him repeatedly to stop fighting. The cops webcam was knocked off his head, then he warned him he would be tasered if he continued to fight, and that's when it seems the man snatched the taser, ran away, turned round at the cop who was in pursuit  and fired at him...he missed.

The cop wasn't thinking, and that is the point.  Realistically, he was responding viscerally, and there are two things to say about that.  First, his visceral response was to engage his ego, just as wife-beaters often do.  There's a better than 50-50 chance this cop has a record of spousal abuse, as this appears to be his response to any adversity.

Second, a person who engages his ego, rather that his thoughts, does not belong on any police force in the nation.  If reform comes, this is the central problem.  Cops are not warriors, but conflict problem solvers.  Yet cities and counties have recruited, and problem cops have gravitated toward combat, until our police forces (18,000 of them in the US) are filled with combat-minded personalities.

We've got to weed these people out.  The difference between police and the military is the clientele they serve.  Soldiers salute Generals.  Police salute the citizens, and the clientele of the police are the citizens--in a democracy, their employers--not enemy combatants.  The challenge confronting police is conflict-resolution and problem solving.  You can't shoot your clientele and solve the problem.

That is core to the slogan, Defund the Police.  That means a re-prioritizing of resources so that we are not hiring blind combatants, but social workers with capabilities.  Until that day, the police will always look upon citizens as the enemy.

I have given my views on this, and my view would be exactly the same if it was a black cop and a white man resisting arrest and acting like Rayshard Brooks did here.

Can you honestly say your view would be the same?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The cop wasn't thinking, and that is the point.  Realistically, he was responding viscerally, and there are two things to say about that.  First, his visceral response was to engage his ego, just as wife-beaters often do.  There's a better than 50-50 chance this cop has a record of spousal abuse, as this appears to be his response to any adversity.

Second, a person who engages his ego, rather that his thoughts, does not belong on any police force in the nation.  If reform comes, this is the central problem.  Cops are not warriors, but conflict problem solvers.  Yet cities and counties have recruited, and problem cops have gravitated toward combat, until our police forces (18,000 of them in the US) are filled with combat-minded personalities.

We've got to weed these people out.  The difference between police and the military is the clientele they serve.  Soldiers salute Generals.  Police salute the citizens, and the clientele of the police are the citizens--in a democracy, their employers--not enemy combatants.  The challenge confronting police is conflict-resolution and problem solving.  You can't shoot your clientele and solve the problem.

That is core to the slogan, Defund the Police.  That means a re-prioritizing of resources so that we are not hiring blind combatants, but social workers with capabilities.  Until that day, the police will always look upon citizens as the enemy.

I have given my views on this, and my view would be exactly the same if it was a black cop and a white man resisting arrest and acting like Rayshard Brooks did here.

Can you honestly say your view would be the same?

That's a safe bet. You would never see a black cop doing this to a white man. The cop, in Georgia, would already have been indicted.

My point is about your constant need to fabricate.

You made my point.

Thanks.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48158787

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I have given my views on this, and my view would be exactly the same if it was a black cop and a white man resisting arrest and acting like Rayshard Brooks did here.

Can you honestly say your view would be the same?

That's a safe bet.  You would never see a black cop doing this to a white man.  The cop, in Georgia, would already have been indicted.

No one is arguing that white cops shoot more black people than vice versa, but I wonder, like I said, if the case was reversed and a black cop did shooy a white person in the same circumstances would you be so sure the cop was wrong?

This sherrif see's things clearly.

"A Black Georgia sheriff has claimed the killing of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta cops was "completely justified."

Alfonzo Williams said claims by Brooks' family lawyer that cops should have chased him instead of shooting at him "a ridiculous statement."

Brooks was fatally shot by an Atlanta police officer after he allegedly failed a sobriety test, took a cop's stun gun and tried to run from authorities outside a Wendy's last Friday.

"He's committed two felony obstruction of an officer counts and he needs to be held accountable, so they are perfectly justified in running behind brooks to capture him," Williams said of the cop's actions.

Williams said that because Brooks had taken a taser, officers are trained to respond the way they did and were "justified" in doing so.

As Brooks allegedly fired it at cops, Williams said the officers could have been "incapacitated" for five seconds.

He told CNN that if tasered, the officer was at risk of being "stomped on the head or having his firearm taken and being used against him."

When asked by anchor Brianna Keilar if he thought the use of lethal force was necessary, Williams said it was.

"Very necessary. The fourth amendment allows it," Williams said.

"This is the objective reasonableness standard, and there's nothing malicious or sadistic in the way these officers behaved, and it's very unfortunate that the law enforcement leaders in the state of Georgia have not come out and stood together on this case," he said.

Williams told CNN that in not standing together, law enforcement officials are "sending the wrong message to Black youth."

"We're telling them that ... it's okay that they can run from the police. They can take a weapon from the police. That they can fight with the police and ... point a weapon at the police and expect nothing to happen," Williams said.

"That is the wrong message to send to Black youth."










https://www.the-sun.com/news/995351/black-sheriff-killing-rayshard-brooks-cops-justified/

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's a safe bet.  You would never see a black cop doing this to a white man.  The cop, in Georgia, would already have been indicted.

No one is arguing that white cops shoot more black people than vice versa, but I wonder, like I said, if the case was reversed and a black cop did shooy a white person in the same circumstances would you be so sure the cop was wrong?

This sherrif see's things clearly.

"A Black Georgia sheriff has claimed the killing of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta cops was "completely justified."

Alfonzo Williams said claims by Brooks' family lawyer that cops should have chased him instead of shooting at him "a ridiculous statement."

Brooks was fatally shot by an Atlanta police officer after he allegedly failed a sobriety test, took a cop's stun gun and tried to run from authorities outside a Wendy's last Friday.

"He's committed two felony obstruction of an officer counts and he needs to be held accountable, so they are perfectly justified in running behind brooks to capture him," Williams said of the cop's actions.

Williams said that because Brooks had taken a taser, officers are trained to respond the way they did and were "justified" in doing so.

As Brooks allegedly fired it at cops, Williams said the officers could have been "incapacitated" for five seconds.

He told CNN that if tasered, the officer was at risk of being "stomped on the head or having his firearm taken and being used against him."

When asked by anchor Brianna Keilar if he thought the use of lethal force was necessary, Williams said it was.

"Very necessary. The fourth amendment allows it," Williams said.

"This is the objective reasonableness standard, and there's nothing malicious or sadistic in the way these officers behaved, and it's very unfortunate that the law enforcement leaders in the state of Georgia have not come out and stood together on this case," he said.

Williams told CNN that in not standing together, law enforcement officials are "sending the wrong message to Black youth."

"We're telling them that ... it's okay that they can run from the police. They can take a weapon from the police. That they can fight with the police and ... point a weapon at the police and expect nothing to happen," Williams said.

"That is the wrong message to send to Black youth."










https://www.the-sun.com/news/995351/black-sheriff-killing-rayshard-brooks-cops-justified/

Well, that sheriff is a southerner.

Of course he would say that.

The similarity between this case and Floyd's  is that in both cases the cops were called out to a non violent incident.

And the initial encounter with the cops was relatively peaceful to start with ..... then a sharp escalation.

De-escalation  skills should be part of their training - for their own well being as much as anything else.

Didn’t the guy pull a taser on the cops?

And what strikes me as really bad is this:
Demonstrators burned the restaurant down! Wtf!?

eddie wrote:

Didn’t the guy pull a taser on the cops?

And what strikes me as really bad is this:
Demonstrators burned the restaurant down! Wtf!?

Well I did say it was peaceful "initially" and I also said "to start with" for extra emphasis.
The taser grabbing incident came after the  escalation, not initially.
And the suspect used it while he was fleeing, at a range where it would have been ineffective (but that's another story).


As for the burning of the building - obviously that was totally wrong.
Tho it seems to me that fires are a habitual way of people expressing themselves in America's deep south.  An odious tradition that has its roots in history. Feuding people appear to use fires as a means of 'communicating their feelings' and yes of course that's wrong on all levels.

"He's committed two felony obstruction of an officer counts and he needs to be held accountable, so they are perfectly justified in running behind brooks to capture him," Williams said of the cop's actions.

The police escalated the situation to where these crimes were necessary. At that point, the police were justified in chasing Brooks to apprehend him. But no more.

Williams said that because Brooks had taken a taser, officers are trained to respond the way they did and were "justified" in doing so.

As Brooks allegedly fired it at cops, Williams said the officers could have been "incapacitated" for five seconds.

These are the kinds of police that we need to get rid of. And not—just in passing—that this isn’t typical of southern lawmen.

I would be just as happy if we dumped the southern states: Amexit. But, for once, the State of Georgia has decided to charge the police officer that killed Brooks with felony murder.

The County Attorney analyzed the details just as I have…1) that the issue started with the first cop wanting Brooks to pull his car over to the side, and he could sleep it off; 2) that the cop who committed the murder, Garrett Rolfe, showed up at the scene, and wanted to arrest Brooks; 3) only when Rolfe tried to effect the arrest, did the situation escalate unnecessarily and Brooks ran; 4) that the taser posed no threat; 5) that instead of pursuing Brooks as he should have, Rolfe murdered him.

It is interesting that the first officer—the one credited with deescalating the situation—has turned state’s evidence and has testified against Rolfe.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rayshard-brooks-killing-murder-charges-today-2020-06-17/

eddie wrote:Didn’t the guy pull a taser on the cops?

And what strikes me as really bad is this:
Demonstrators burned the restaurant down! Wtf!?

A taser is a toy.  How many times do I have to repeat that?   It is a non-lethal form of restraint.

As for the restaurant, it's property.  A life has been murdered.  No equivalency.  Certainly you are not going to insist that Brooks is responsible for the restaurant.

Besides, I'm quite sure the restaurant has insurance.

A little professionalism goes a long way.

Professionals should keep their feelings in check and however heinous the criminal is, the cops should never behave as cop, judge, jury & executioner all rolled into one.


Remember that the police reguarly arrest people who do extreme things - eg parents who kill their own children in cold blood.

There was one particular horrific case here in the UK where a guy killed his biological 8 year old daughter by strangulation, in her bedroom.  He offered no reason, it wasn't for anything bad the kid did, he said he did not know why he did it, as he wasn't even angry at the time. That poor little childl!!

When cops arrest serial killers, child killers and child rapists etc  they have enough self control not to kill such people on the way to the station - so surely they should also be able to keep their feelings in check when arresting the likes of Floyd.

Sorry to go off topic there, I did so in order to make a point.
G/night.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Didn’t the guy pull a taser on the cops?

And what strikes me as really bad is this:
Demonstrators burned the restaurant down! Wtf!?

As for the restaurant, it's property.  A life has been murdered.  No equivalency.  Certainly you are not going to insist that Brooks is responsible for the restaurant.

Besides, I'm quite sure the restaurant has insurance.

Oh well...that’s alright then.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As for the restaurant, it's property.  A life has been murdered.  No equivalency.  Certainly you are not going to insist that Brooks is responsible for the restaurant.

Besides, I'm quite sure the restaurant has insurance.

Oh well...that’s alright then.

That's the way I feel. The police have the option to arrest those responsible for arson, but it was not Brooks doing. He was already dead.

eddie wrote:Didn’t the guy pull a taser on the cops?

And what strikes me as really bad is this:
Demonstrators burned the restaurant down! Wtf!?

He stole the cops taser and fired it at him.

Anyway, he has been charged with murder.