Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody

[TECSHARE]

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.

[1714944042]

1714944042

[1714944042]

1714944042

[1714944042]

1714944042

[1714944042]

1714944042

[COVID-19]

I know you're all listening to this one and you like it, you hypocrites : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvfa27zZs5A

[Spendulus]

   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.

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.

The "rules of engagement" specify when and how they should use deadly force. Simple as that, although there may be gray areas. These rules vary tremendously by state.

[PopoJeff]

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.

[PopoJeff]

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.

[hornetsnest]

Meanwhile in the "multicultural" UK

[Gyfts]

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.

[PopoJeff]

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.

[coins4commies]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

That's called finessing your way out of BEING murdered not committing murder. Assault on a police officer is pretty serious time. Weird how you are willing to make every assumption of innocence for the convicted child beater violently attacking police, but they are the bad guys for not letting themselves or others become victims. This is all of course while you don't even live here and don't have to deal with any of this. Of course you don't mind others paying for your cult membership, it is not your blood.

I've and idea.Why don't Black and White men...in fact men of all colors and creeds combine forces and address the REAL problem

Clearly the only answer is systemic sexism. It is the only possible explanation.

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.

Wait, so he is free to assault the police, and they had no business taking out a tazer to stop him? So poor Mr. child beater Brooks had a legitimate fear for his life, but not the police? Do you eat paint chips or are you just totally and unabashedly full of shit?

[PopoJeff]

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.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable

[TECSHARE]

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.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.

[BADecker]

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.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.

Since PopoJeff doesn't realize that the thing he is calling law, is really policy, what he says doesn't matter. The problem is that most people don't know the difference between law and policy - just like PopoJeff - so they succumb to the policy-makers in court.

[TECSHARE]

Since PopoJeff doesn't realize that the thing he is calling law, is really policy, what he says doesn't matter. The problem is that most people don't know the difference between law and policy - just like PopoJeff - so they succumb to the policy-makers in court.

Some people, IE you. If that was a civilian he would have been absolutely justified in the same use of force. Your default freeman replies aren't going to cut it here. Common law has clear standards about use of force. When you become violent and victimize others, you legally have all the rights of a rabid animal under common law.

[PopoJeff]

Yes, I forgot Mr Decker has his own law. So for your purposes I can extrapolate a wee bit further....

APD policy is in tune with established case law. And... well, that's about all it takes.  Department policies must adhere to current US and state law, not BADecker's version of law.

[BADecker]

Yes, I forgot Mr Decker has his own law. So for your purposes I can extrapolate a wee bit further....

APD policy is in tune with established case law. And... well, that's about all it takes.  Department policies must adhere to current US and state law, not BADecker's version of law.

You seem to forget all the hundreds of cases where a verdict was handed down through the ignorance of the people within the case. Anybody can find dozens of cases that, if the defendant or his attorney had know or used some simple law or court case that they didn't use, the whole case would have changed.

The point? If all you want to do is rely on the ignorance of the people, you are way worse than the people being tried.

[TECSHARE]

You seem to forget all the hundreds of cases where a verdict was handed down through the ignorance of the people within the case. Anybody can find dozens of cases that, if the defendant or his attorney had know or used some simple law or court case that they didn't use, the whole case would have changed.

The point? If all you want to do is rely on the ignorance of the people, you are way worse than the people being tried.

You seem to forget we aren't talking about other cases, we are talking about this case.

[guigui371]

One more aspect to consider.  

If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.  

Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
  Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?

Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).

[BADecker]

One more aspect to consider.  

If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.  

Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
  Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?

Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).

Cops are trained to evaluate the situation. This doesn't make it always easy.

The point for you and me is that we never know for a fact that some accident, even death, isn't going to happen to us in the next minute. So, we should always be prepared for death as much as we can.

Cops evaluate the crowded street. They won't shoot except if the crook is killing people right and left... or if they have a clear, accurate shot.

Accidents happen, but cops are far, far, far, less likely to cause them than the crook. I sure don't want to get in my car a little later, and get killed by somebody running a red light. But it happens. And so do stray bullets.

[PopoJeff]

One more aspect to consider.  

If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.  

Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
  Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?

Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).

Couldn't agree more. One of the cardinal rules of firearms is to know your target, it's surroundings, and what's beyond it.
   In this case, I don't know what the officer saw