Shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta

Sometimes true, sometimes not true.
Guns solved the Nazi problem. And guns can solve violent crime.

 

The individual in question did not begin to flee until after he had already physically resisted arrest, and physically assaulted two separate law enforcement officers in the process in order to facilitate his escape. There is no excuse for such actions.

Under the position being presented on the part of yourself, individuals would be free to physically assault law enforcement officers with impunity, knowing that if they move back they can never be met with deadly force as a response.

Every individual in society is required to understand that assaulting a law enforcement officer is not an acceptable course of action, and will be met with deadly force as a first response. That is the way society works. Those who choose to live in society are required to surrender their own violent impulses, and conduct themselves in a peaceful manner with others.

 

Do not resist arrest, do not assault law enforcement officers, do not get killed in response. It is a very simple, very easy concept to understand and abide by. Why do so many individuals have so much trouble grasping such a basic concept?

 

The individual in question was not innocent. The matter is as simple as that. He chose to resist a lawful arrest for being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, which was also a violation of his parole. Had he simply surrendered peacefully, he would still be alive.

 

Because your concept is out of date and bloody stupid maybe… This isn't the far west anymore, you don't shoot people in the back for fleeing.

 

Was a verdict by a judge and jury rendered?

 

He chose to take the taser and aim it at the police. Those were all choices he made beginning with not getting his story straight. If you haven't seen the entire video, then I suggest that everyone watches the 90 minute long compilation of body cams and security, not just i-phone videos.

His welfare was the first concern of the officer and then officers, it was Brooks who chose to escalate the situation.

 

Why should anyone shoot someone else just because they're different? It doesn't make sense. The subject of Rayshan Brooks shot and killed by an Atlanta Police Officer Garret Roelf who was trigger happy when the killing occurred. is the topic here. Let's not go off track.

 

What you seemed to have missed is that Brooks was still armed after the deployed the taser at the officer. That taser is not like a Laws Rocket where it is a one and done weapon. One type used by the police can be fired up to four times. The other type can be fired once, and then can be used as a contact taser. In other words, it can be held against a person to deliver an electric shock. Therefore Brooks was still armed when the officer shot him.

There are a lot of people that have armchair quarterbacked this situation, but none rely on the reality of the situation. I have heard people say that the officers could have followed him to his sister's house. But if he were to get into a wreck along the way, then the officers would have been responsible. They could have allowed him to walk home, but that ignores two points. The first is that Brooks was already guilty of DUI. Unless of course he got drunk while blocking the Wendy's Drive Thu lane. The other point is that if he was allowed go to his sister's house, then someone would have to watch the vehicle to ensure that Brooks did not attempt to drive it before he sobered up. Say, they had let Brooks walk to his sister's house, and then drove off. What would stop Brooks from returning to his vehicle after the officers left? If he had then got into an accident, then the officers would have been on the hook for the accident. The only true recourse that these officers had was to arrest Brooks for DUI. They did not put Brooks in that situation. He did it himself. He then resisted arrest, fought the officers, and fired a weapon at them. Rayshard Brooks is dead because of his dumb mistakes. The officers did nothing wrong.

 

Let me make this point. I do agree that the officers could have handled the situation of cuffing Brooks better. But you have to understand that they were reacting to the situation. Sometimes you are caught off guard during the heat of the battle. But they were not at fault in this situation.

BTW, I missed the whole parole issue. That does explain Brooks motivation. If the officers knew this fact, then they should have handled the situation differently.

 

^^^
Utter nonsense, and willful ignorance.

 

All I am saying is that if I did what that man did I would have been shot as well and you cannot get any whiter then me.

 

Pray tell, what part of "do not assault" amounts to being both out of date and stupid? Explain such. Explain why law enforcement officers should be legally required to allow themselves to be assaulted and not respond with force.

 

Is an individual legally required to allow themselves to be subjected to unprovoked, unjustified physical assault, simply because a judge and jury has not yet determined the one who committed the assault committed a crime at the exact moment of the assault?

 

This is far more violent times than the wild west ever was! Take black on black killings in Chicago for instance. You don't seem to get it that this fleeing man was not shot until he fired at officers. That was HIS fatal mistake. Is it because he is black....he bears no responsibility?? Is that your take??? Hw many cops do you think are dead now because they couldn't react quickly enough to a criminal? Or do you even care? Your unicorn logic sicken me. Kumbaya!

 

Hard to aim a taser when facing the other way and running away. And according to the police a taser is a non lethal device, so the cops life were not in danger.

 

Every job has its risk. If fighting off drunks is too much for them, then they can apply as groceries packer.

 

A cop isn't an individual. The cops are the one who initiated contact with the victim.

 

No, he was shot while fleeing. He wasn't a danger at that point. He deserved to be arrested, not shot dead in the back by cowards.

 

What did the law enforcement officers who were assaulted deserve? Did they deserve to be physically assaulted by a violent convicted felon? What did they do to deserve being assaulted without justification?

 

Pray tell. When an individual is being assaulted, such as being repeatedly punched in the head, can they legally defend themselves at any point during which the assault is being committed? Or are they legally limited to acting only during the points in time while they are in the act of being struck, and legally prohibited from acting during the periods in between the blows being landed when physical contact has momentarily ceased?

 

They were not being assaulted while he was running away… Are you saying that revenge is a good motive to shoot someone in the back?

 

While being attack yes you can defend yourself with reasonable force. Once the guy is running away you're not being attacked still.
Cops have pr24, mace, taser and a gun. The later one should be used only as a last ressort against criminals posing a real imminent threat to the public safety, not the cops feefee being afraid to get a booboo, but a real imminent threat of death. A guy running away with a spent taser isn't a real imminent threat to the public safety.

 

Are you advocating for criminals to flee whenever caught - which is what they would do if they knew there wouldn't be any consequences? How about if they attacked your loved ones, or stole your car and they began to flee and the police just stood there looking at them?

 

No I'm advocating for not shooting them in the back and instead get some help and catch the mofo so that he can be judged and put in jail.