Shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta

Hence why I said previously that your system is out of date. At one time people got their head chopped off for not bowing your head to a noble. It was also "a" rule and "a" law. It didn't make anymore sense then shooting someone for a DUI.

 

Except the individual in question did not have his head chopped off for disrespect, nor was he shot for being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. Instead he was shot for having physically assaulted two law enforcement officers attempting to perform a legal and justified arrest for at least one felony offense. Said individual decided to resist, and used whatever means was available to facilitate those efforts at resisting.

 

Still doesn't warrant a death sentence. Those gestapo wannabe thought they were in a Judge Dread movie.

 

Do not resist arrest, do not commit assault, do not get shot as a result.

Why is such a simple, basic, reasonable concept, ultimately proving to be so difficult for so many to comprehend?

 

Do not resist arrest, do not commit assault or you'll get arrested none the less and not shot in the back by the gestapo.

 

The individual in question chose to pose a significant risk to the safety and wellbeing of others. Essentially he brought his death upon himself, as he knew he was going back to prison and would not be given another chance.

 

He wasn't a danger, he was running away. That's just the gestapo feefees talking.

 

And turned to fire the Taser at him?

Today a detective was murdered in Roscommon by a man who wrestled his gun off him and shot him with it, a man not armed with a Taser;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53081996

 

Why, the police have been claiming for years that a taser wasn't a lethal weapon! So not really a danger either especially since there were two of them vs one.

 

As the confirmed career felon that he was, for all manner of offenses including abuse of a child, the individual in question knew better than anyone just what sort of risks he faced when he encountered law enforcement officers. He knew better than anyone that he could and indeed would be killed if he did the wrong thing at the wrong time. And yet he still chose to do so regardless.

Even if the law enforcement officers responsible were in the wrong, it does not in any way excuse the numerous felony-level offenses that were committed on the part of the deceased individual that provoked the incident in the first place.

 

Cite where the claim has been made. Show the exact words used.

 

That's for the judge to decide, not for the gestapo having bad feefees.

 

Google is your friend, unless that's too complicate for you.

 

Google reveals a great many things. Including how any random implement automatically becomes a deadly weapon when used against another in a criminally offensive manner.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/deadly_weapon

Deadly Weapon

Primary tabs

A deadly weapon is usually an object, instrument, substance, or device which is intended to be used in a way that is likely to cause death, or with which death can be easily and readily produced. A deadly weapon need not be a weapon in the traditional sense. For example, in Acers v. United States the Supreme Court acknowledged that a large rock could be considered a deadly weapon when used by a defendant to strike the victim in the head, fracturing his skull. Some jurisdictions allow for even more flexibility in the definition of a deadly weapon. For example, Texas courts held in Stanul v. State that a floor could be considered a deadly weapon when the defendant slammed the victim’s head down upon it, and held in Turner v. State that hands and fists could be considered deadly weapons under certain circumstances.


A prosecutor charging a defendant with a crime such as "assault with a deadly weapon" must prove not only that the defendant assaulted the victim, but also that the weapon was indeed deadly. Whether or not a weapon was deadly is a question of fact usually left to the jury. The fact finder decides after examining the evidence presented and the facts of the case. The physical qualities of the weapon as well as the manner in which the defendant wielded it are important factors in the fact finder’s decision. The size and weight of the weapon are often considered, as well the degree of force used by the defendant, and the type and bodily location of injuries to the victim.


Some jurisdictions recognize “deadly weapons per se” in their criminal statutes, meaning that the named weapon is considered likely to cause death regardless of the user’s intent or manner of use. Therefore, if a defendant used a weapon listed in the statute as deadly per se, the prosecution does not have to prove at trial that the weapon is deadly. Rather, the deadly nature of the weapon is automatically assumed. Firearms are the most common deadly weapons per se, but different jurisdictions may list other weapons. For example, Nebraska (Neb.Rev.St. § 28-1205) considers firearms, knives, and brass or iron knuckles as deadly weapons per se.

 

The very fact you choose to defend a violent career criminal is quite revealing.

 

And yet the gestapo use them daily on people... Food for thought, no?

 

The fact that you're defending the gestapo john wayne wannabe is way more concerning.

 

11 charges.

I watched it again today. It was a total cluste f*ck. The officers make mistake after mistake after mistake.

His criminal record does not excuse murder. That's nuts.

 

So does your rationale apply just to blacks, or is obeying the law optional for everyone?

 

Not all infractions deserve the death penalty...

 

Nor does the plain truth deserve the back of ones hand. This is about a string of infractions, culminating in putting the life of an officer of the law in jeopardy, forcing him to make a split second decision. LEO's are not our sacrificial pawns in some board game.

 

The gestapo life was never in danger and that split second decision is a figment of you immagination.

 

And they are responsible for the deaths of numerous individuals, proving conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt, that less-than-lethal is not, never has been, and ultimately never will be, synonymous with non-lethal. The matter is that simple. Such devices pose the very real risk of killing an individual, meaning the discharge of such a device against a law enforcement officers is legally no different from discharging a firearm at a law enforcement officer.

Why is such a simple matter ultimately proving to be so difficult to comprehend?

 

And the GBI has not even had the opportunity to complete its investigation. If it returns the verdict of the shooting being justified, the prosecutor is going to have a very hard time making their case in a court of law.

 

Their decision to use deadly force will be defended until the time the GBI, and whatever investigatory agencies are involved, ultimately rule the use of force against a career felon who committed assault on two law enforcement officers was unjustified.

Or should the entire concept of due process be abandoned and the law enforcement officers killed outright, simply because some individuals are too upset to wait for the justice system to play out?