So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place. That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee. Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life. Thats just dumb. Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives. We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun.
If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance. They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over. These cowards have no business being police officers.
Topic: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody - page 15. (Read 4455 times)
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.
If he was a deadly threat to others, why under Tennessee vs. Garner wouldn't the officers have the legal authority to shoot Brooks? I'd argue he was a potentially deadly threat to officers primarily, then bystanders.
How was he potentially a "deadly threat"? His taser had been discharged. He was running away from the cops. Not a deadly threat to anyone. Besides, its not about what the cops have the right to do under the law, its about what they should do. Being able to legally finesse your way into murder should be discouraged among our nation's police force.
The taser has a second shot to it. I also believe most tasers allow you to dry stun after the taser's shot has been deployed without the cartridge in place at the end of the taser (meaning you can hold the taser to the skin directly). Over 1,000 people have died after tasers were used on them since 2000, 150 of these autopsies show the taser having a significant impact on the cause of death. Also, tasers can be dangerous if you have any sort of heart condition. Also, if the taser is deployed near your face, the prongs can blind you.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-911/
You have two elements -
1.) The taser itself causes extreme bodily harm or potential death.
2.) The taser incapacitates the officer which might result the suspect inflicting further bodily harm of potential death.
That's why the officer shot and it isn't unreasonable to say from a moral perspective that for the officer's safety, he had a right to defend himself. You put yourself in his shoes, you have someone that fought you and resisted arrest, stole a taser, then fired it at you. Would you not worry about your safety at that point given the circumstances? On a side note, I'm not even sure if the DA's office in Atlanta is going to let this go. I read an article stating that prosecutors are floating the idea of charging the officer who fired rounds probably to cave into the mob who's demanding the officer be charged. You then have an acquittal and people start the rioting cycle over again because they feel justice was not served.
You are exactly correct. Depending on the type of Taser (there are several). Some have a second shot in the primary cartridge. Some have single shot cartridges. If the single shot cartridge type is used, officers usually have either; 2 spare cartridges on their belt, or, 1 spare cartridge attached to the Taser battery, which inserts into the grip of the Taser.
Another notable fact. You do not need to WAIT to be assaulted/shot/tasered before defending yourself or others.
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.
If he was a deadly threat to others, why under Tennessee vs. Garner wouldn't the officers have the legal authority to shoot Brooks? I'd argue he was a potentially deadly threat to officers primarily, then bystanders.
How was he potentially a "deadly threat"? His taser had been discharged. He was running away from the cops. Not a deadly threat to anyone. Besides, its not about what the cops have the right to do under the law, its about what they should do. Being able to legally finesse your way into murder should be discouraged among our nation's police force.
The taser has a second shot to it. I also believe most tasers allow you to dry stun after the taser's shot has been deployed without the cartridge in place at the end of the taser (meaning you can hold the taser to the skin directly). Over 1,000 people have died after tasers were used on them since 2000, 150 of these autopsies show the taser having a significant impact on the cause of death. Also, tasers can be dangerous if you have any sort of heart condition. Also, if the taser is deployed near your face, the prongs can blind you.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-911/
You have two elements -
1.) The taser itself causes extreme bodily harm or potential death.
2.) The taser incapacitates the officer which might result the suspect inflicting further bodily harm of potential death.
That's why the officer shot and it isn't unreasonable to say from a moral perspective that for the officer's safety, he had a right to defend himself. You put yourself in his shoes, you have someone that fought you and resisted arrest, stole a taser, then fired it at you. Would you not worry about your safety at that point given the circumstances? On a side note, I'm not even sure if the DA's office in Atlanta is going to let this go. I read an article stating that prosecutors are floating the idea of charging the officer who fired rounds probably to cave into the mob who's demanding the officer be charged. You then have an acquittal and people start the rioting cycle over again because they feel justice was not served.
Meanwhile in the "multicultural" UK 
Resisting arrest is a felony. Assaulting cops is a felony. Disarming an Officer is a felony. Stealing an officer's taser is a felony. Pointing the stolen taser at an officer is a felony. Firing a taser at an Officer is a felony.
Assaulting officers is violence. The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
Assaulting officers is violence. The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.
It really shouldn't matter what the law says cops can and can't get away with -- they should know better at this point in time that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it.
It really shouldn't matter what the law says cops can and can't get away with -- they should know better at this point in time that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it.
Did you REALLY just write that? Go back and read it again.
"It really shouldn't matter what the law says"
Thats literally the most important thing in the world. Cops dont make the laws, they don't write the laws. They ENFORCE the established laws. The laws that are made by your elected politicians. In a court of law, where they (and you) are judged for their actions, literally the only thing that matters is WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Not the kids opinions, not the opinions of any race that want special treatment. The cops have to follow the law, and none of this shit would be happening if everyone else did to.
"They should know better"
Better than what? The laws that govern their operation and procedure? The laws of the state the operate in?
I think what you're really trying to say is you don't want cops to arrest black people for their crimes anymore. You want special treatment for blacks. There's the racist side of all this mess. The race pandering.
There's a thing called unpleasant truths vs and comforting lies. I'll give you an example:
BLM is fighting for the rights of the oppressed is your comforting lie. But the unpleasant truth is they're destroying property and lives of the innocent, at a higher rate than anyone else, while most 'woke' folks are asleep to the fact they are nothing more than a political operative, funding and being directed by the Democratic Party.
Here's another one. You think justice is served in the Floyd case, by rushing the charges on Chauvin. Makes you feel good, right? That knee hold looked awful. Unpleasant truth is, Chauvin will be found not-guilty of murder. Because most of the public is ignorant of US law.
Nope. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be, going full conspiratard in the process. Whatever argument you are making is not aided by projecting upon me and referencing conspiracies backed by zero actual evidence whatsoever.
The point is just because the police have the right to do something under the law, it does not mean that it is just. Laws are a continually evolving work in progress. Nothing is set in stone - not even the constitution - that's why we have amendments.
Just because police can do something awful legally, it doesn't mean they should do it. Is that really so hard to understand?
What conspiracy? Oh, the BLM thing? Take a look and you can find the truth, it can be found everywhere, you just refuse to look.
The cops ARE the law. They change as the law changes. Their entire job is literally enforcement of established law, regardless of personal feelings or beliefs. Humans doing a robots job. And things are set in stone, until they change the stone. Up until 1985, ANY felon fleeing from the law in Tennessee could be shot in the back, and they were. That was the law. Then in 1985, the Tennessee vs Garner case was heard by the US Supreme Court, and the law changed, now the fleeing felon must pose a risk of harm to others in order for deadly force to be used. That law changed, the cops changed with the law.
Here, you missed his one because the guy wasn't black, but same circumstances http://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/suspect-shot-dead-by-cop-after-taking-officers-stun-gun-tasing-him
Your point is moot.
It really shouldn't matter what the law says cops can and can't get away with -- they should know better at this point in time that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it.
Did you REALLY just write that? Go back and read it again.
"It really shouldn't matter what the law says"
Thats literally the most important thing in the world. Cops dont make the laws, they don't write the laws. They ENFORCE the established laws. The laws that are made by your elected politicians. In a court of law, where they (and you) are judged for their actions, literally the only thing that matters is WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Not the kids opinions, not the opinions of any race that want special treatment. The cops have to follow the law, and none of this shit would be happening if everyone else did to.
"They should know better"
Better than what? The laws that govern their operation and procedure? The laws of the state the operate in?
I think what you're really trying to say is you don't want cops to arrest black people for their crimes anymore. You want special treatment for blacks. There's the racist side of all this mess. The race pandering.
There's a thing called unpleasant truths vs and comforting lies. I'll give you an example:
BLM is fighting for the rights of the oppressed is your comforting lie. But the unpleasant truth is they're destroying property and lives of the innocent, at a higher rate than anyone else, while most 'woke' folks are asleep to the fact they are nothing more than a political operative, funding and being directed by the Democratic Party.
Here's another one. You think justice is served in the Floyd case, by rushing the charges on Chauvin. Makes you feel good, right? That knee hold looked awful. Unpleasant truth is, Chauvin will be found not-guilty of murder. Because most of the public is ignorant of US law.
Resisting arrest is a felony. Assaulting cops is a felony. Disarming an Officer is a felony. Stealing an officer's taser is a felony. Pointing the stolen taser at an officer is a felony. Firing a taser at an Officer is a felony.
Assaulting officers is violence. The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
Assaulting officers is violence. The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.
It really shouldn't matter what the law says cops can and can't get away with -- they should know better at this point in time that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it.
I know you're all listening to this one and you like it, you hypocrites : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvfa27zZs5A
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.
If he was a deadly threat to others, why under Tennessee vs. Garner wouldn't the officers have the legal authority to shoot Brooks? I'd argue he was a potentially deadly threat to officers primarily, then bystanders.
It doesn't matter, Nutilduuuuh's virtue signalling is more important than those police officer's lives. They should sacrifice themselves for the cult of "social justice". Some of them may die, but that is a sacrifice he is willing to make.
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.
If he was a deadly threat to others, why under Tennessee vs. Garner wouldn't the officers have the legal authority to shoot Brooks? I'd argue he was a potentially deadly threat to officers primarily, then bystanders.
Do not forget that the backstage elites specifically give such reasons in order to push people together. Do not get fooled by this. We are all one!
That's cute. Really really a cute idea. Right out of a leftist politician playbook. However, it lack's one important factor...... TRUTH.
It's really an empty opinion to think police and "the system" are "manufacturing criminality." Spend one friggin hour with any police department and you'll see they don't spend their time picking out who they want to arrest.
You can pull up any department's UCR data and annual report. You'll find out the largest portion of police interaction and arrests stem from someone CALLING the cops. It wasn't the cop's choice to go somewhere and dig up some BS charge, the cop's get called to a crime in progress.
And the other contradictory issue is "respecting the police". No, no ones looking for you to respect a particular person, but a civilized society expects you to respect their established LAWS. When you don't respect the established LAWS, then you end up having to deal with the police.
You are also ignoring a WHY. You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime. WHY? Which came first, the crime or the police response? The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime." The actual inverse happens. Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops. Policing is REACTIVE in nature.
1. Look how many people are in prison on non-violent, drug offenses
2. Look at how many people who come out of prison reoffend.
Drugs are a health issue and should not be criminalized anyway. The police are the middle men in all of this. Grabbing people off the streets for "crimes" that are crime by law, putting these people into the system, and then they come out the other end hardened criminals.
We will not blindly respect laws and will challenge them and the people who are enforcing them if they are unjust. These laws will not be respected because they are not enforced fairly. You can look at discrepancies in sentencing by race for the same crimes and see huge discrepancies. White people are doing most of the drugs while latinx and black people are being incarcerated at higher rates with lower use.
Quote
You are also ignoring a WHY. You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime. WHY? Which came first, the crime or the police response? The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime." The actual inverse happens. Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops. Policing is REACTIVE in nature.
The racism came first.Slavery came first.
Jim Crow came first.
Redlining came first.
War on drugs came first.
We are done with being reactive. Its time to be proactive and thats why we will be defunding the police and replacing them with humane social services.
you are completely out of mind, you are opening a box of pandora, the us is not a homogeneus christian society, there will be countless savages trying to abuse your police free environment to creat terrorism hubs.
russians are not supposting your communist ideas, because you will only end up destroying the economy instead of developing it. secondly communism in the us will never work, because there are countless fighting groups that will undermine it. you would have to establish a fascist stalinist communism to get the economy work at all.
look at chaz what kind of shit it is.
That's cute. Really really a cute idea. Right out of a leftist politician playbook. However, it lack's one important factor...... TRUTH.
It's really an empty opinion to think police and "the system" are "manufacturing criminality." Spend one friggin hour with any police department and you'll see they don't spend their time picking out who they want to arrest.
You can pull up any department's UCR data and annual report. You'll find out the largest portion of police interaction and arrests stem from someone CALLING the cops. It wasn't the cop's choice to go somewhere and dig up some BS charge, the cop's get called to a crime in progress.
And the other contradictory issue is "respecting the police". No, no ones looking for you to respect a particular person, but a civilized society expects you to respect their established LAWS. When you don't respect the established LAWS, then you end up having to deal with the police.
You are also ignoring a WHY. You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime. WHY? Which came first, the crime or the police response? The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime." The actual inverse happens. Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops. Policing is REACTIVE in nature.
1. Look how many people are in prison on non-violent, drug offenses
2. Look at how many people who come out of prison reoffend.
Drugs are a health issue and should not be criminalized anyway. The police are the middle men in all of this. Grabbing people off the streets for "crimes" that are crime by law, putting these people into the system, and then they come out the other end hardened criminals.
We will not blindly respect laws and will challenge them and the people who are enforcing them if they are unjust. These laws will not be respected because they are not enforced fairly. You can look at discrepancies in sentencing by race for the same crimes and see huge discrepancies. White people are doing most of the drugs while latinx and black people are being incarcerated at higher rates with lower use.
Quote
You are also ignoring a WHY. You say the areas with the most police still have the most crime. WHY? Which came first, the crime or the police response? The areas with the most police didn't start out by someone saying "you know what, we should have a shit ton of police, that'll stop crime." The actual inverse happens. Crime statistics increase, they hire more cops. Crime increases more, they hire even more cops. Policing is REACTIVE in nature.
The racism came first.Slavery came first.
Jim Crow came first.
Redlining came first.
War on drugs came first.
We are done with being reactive. Its time to be proactive and thats why we will be defunding the police and replacing them with humane social services.
islamic extremists could now easily attack the us, by sending the black skinned suicide bombers into the us to piss of the police to achieve suicide by cop, each time crazy and racist BLM then destroyes a bit more of america.
trump should point that out. to get rid of the panic everytime police kills a black offender.
trump should point that out. to get rid of the panic everytime police kills a black offender.
I can somehow learn to live without garnering your respect, but really man, you have to stop crying in public. Its embarrassing.
Like I said before, the man was shot while running away. The police officer being aimed at with the taser had backup. Lethal force was totally uncalled for in this situation.
Statist authoritymongers are gonna toady for the state though, can't stop that.
Like I said before, the man was shot while running away. The police officer being aimed at with the taser had backup. Lethal force was totally uncalled for in this situation.
Statist authoritymongers are gonna toady for the state though, can't stop that.
Not just me, anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. Could you possibly project your delusions any harder? Lethal force was ABSOLUTELY called for. Statist authoritymonger. That's funny. Look what else I found comtard:
How does it feel praising the innocence a child beater?
exactly and also there was no certainty he might have had a gun somewhere.
The body cam footage of the responding officers was released. The man was patted down for weapons and he didn't have anything on him. This does not mean the guy was not a threat because he could have incapacitated an officer with that taser and either stole his gun or cause other harm.
Raw body cam video of incident - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-FVrZio2-8
Your problem is not with Law Enforcement, it's with the law. Every state had this thing called laws. Somewhere within it, you'll find a section detailing deadly force and when its justified to use. Then every Police dept has something they call Policy, or SOP's, or General Orders. That book will also details when deadly force can and can't be used by police.
Most of them are quite similar from department to department, state to state. If if you ever read one of these books, you'll find a phrase called "fleeing forcible felon" or "violent fleeing felon."
Resisting arrest is a felony. Assaulting cops is a felony. Disarming an Officer is a felony. Stealing an officer's taser is a felony. Pointing the stolen taser at an officer is a felony. Firing a taser at an Officer is a felony.
Assaulting officers is violence. The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
This is just another criminal who escalated a simple interaction into multiple felonies, and his own death.
Instead of "more training" or "police reform"...... maybe the public needs some training on resisting arrest..
No one seems to mention, that every time the police have to use force on someone, it's because that someone resists, fights, or attacks the cops.
Most of them are quite similar from department to department, state to state. If if you ever read one of these books, you'll find a phrase called "fleeing forcible felon" or "violent fleeing felon."
Resisting arrest is a felony. Assaulting cops is a felony. Disarming an Officer is a felony. Stealing an officer's taser is a felony. Pointing the stolen taser at an officer is a felony. Firing a taser at an Officer is a felony.
Assaulting officers is violence. The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
This is just another criminal who escalated a simple interaction into multiple felonies, and his own death.
Instead of "more training" or "police reform"...... maybe the public needs some training on resisting arrest..
No one seems to mention, that every time the police have to use force on someone, it's because that someone resists, fights, or attacks the cops.
Quote
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Tennessee v. Garner would get the officer who fired shots off the hook but even below that any Georgia statute that outlines self defense would work too. A taser is a less than lethal, but not a non-lethal weapon, and the moment you steal that taser from an officer, it outlines a case for an officer to use deadly force. Considering the fact the suspect actually fired off the taser, self defense is a valid reason for the shot. It certainly doesn't help that the guy committed multiple felonies by resisting and obstructing. The Georgia DA's office is looking to have a decision out midweek on whether or not to file charges but the officer involved was already fired.
I guess asking someone to not drive while drunk, resist arrest, assault a police officer, steal his taser, fire the taser at the officer, is too much. The district attorney's office is going to find the shooting legally justified but the officer got fired strictly for PR.
He was shot in the back while running away. The cop's life was in no way endangered. If the shooting is found to be legally justified then it will be highlighting one of the main problems with law enforcement.
The use of force was 100% justified. Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or dishonest.
exactly and also there was no certainty he might have had a gun somewhere.
Here is the answer to the riots. Listen to the answer right after the bearded, masked guy goes off-screen.
MUST SEE: It’s Not About RACE, or LEFT or RIGHT! It’s About YOU And ME VS THE STATE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLW38Gvqv44#t=420s
MUST SEE: It’s Not About RACE, or LEFT or RIGHT! It’s About YOU And ME VS THE STATE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLW38Gvqv44#t=420s
why are these people so crazy, the state is an achievement of generations, no crazy leftists are trying to destroy it so they can live medieval in starvation again.
Here is the answer to the riots. Listen to the answer right after the bearded, masked guy goes off-screen.
MUST SEE: It’s Not About RACE, or LEFT or RIGHT! It’s About YOU And ME VS THE STATE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLW38Gvqv44#t=420s
MUST SEE: It’s Not About RACE, or LEFT or RIGHT! It’s About YOU And ME VS THE STATE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLW38Gvqv44#t=420s
Jump to: