Video Of Rayshard Brooks Being Shot by Atlanta Police at Wendy's

empathyofconsciou · #71 ● 06-15-2020, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by 1776 ↗

He had his reasons for not wanting to be taken into custody AGAIN and the police had already checked his records and knew they HAD to bring this dangerous criminal back into custody AGAIN.

CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: simple battery
CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS
CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: cruelty to children
CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS
CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: FALSE IMPRISONMENT
CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 7 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS
CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: family violence battery
CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS
CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: THEFT BY REC STOLEN PROP
CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013
SENTENCE LENGTH: 7 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS
CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: CRMNL INTERFERE GOVT PROP
CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013
SENTENCE LENGTH: 5 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS
CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: obstr of law enf officer
CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013
SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

That is not his real photo. Everything else appears to be accurate

**Vedderman** · #72 ● 06-15-2020, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Sinil ↗

I was actually looking for you to weigh in on this one, Vedderman. I have been talking to 'Peace Officers' I work with here in Austin, and it seems to be a split over what should happen to the officer that shot the suspect.

On one hand the discussion of 'How much of a threat is this guy (the suspect) posing to the public?' comes up. The majority of us have come to the conclusion that officers make a habit of chasing suspects too often. Most of the officers I talked to stated that they felt like they HAD to chase someone suspected of a crime, as opposed to simply letting them flee and catching them later. I think this mentality of needing to catch the bad guy may be putting officers and suspects in danger equally. Take this case for example. This officers reluctance to discontinue a pursuit put him within range of the taser (disregarding for a moment if the shoot was legal or not). Had the officers stayed with the suspects car then a DUI suspect runs home and is apprehended later. It seems like that is the direction the Austin PD is taking. A direction of respecting suspects as people that have to be protected by the officer as opposed to people that the officer has to protect themselves against. They are also talking about 'Defunding the Department'. In our case this mean APD will be highering Psychologists AND giving them patrol cars with lights and sirens !! no BS..lol. They will be available to the 911 dispatcher for calls that require mental health experts (suicide attempts, jumpers, domestic violence in some cases). So I fully agree things need to change.

Here is where my option differs from yours I think. I think what the officer did in the video was legal, but WRONG. The more I watch the video the more details I catch, like that the taser fired and 2 seconds later the officer fired his pistol at the suspects back. I think with the use of force laws the way they are now he (the officer) was acting on what he knew the law to be.

Vedderman, should we retroactively make the laws right (they do need to change) and then hang the officer out to dry (based on how we want the use of force continuum to work from now on)? That is my question to you. No, I'm not trying to be a smart ass or call you out, I legit want to know what you think.

Thanks for your cogent and insightful post. Always appreciated. If it is determined that the shoot was legal, just irresponsible and unethical, then I think the guy can probably get some slack once the laws are changed. A legal shoot is a legal shoot, so he shouldn't have to do time in that case. But anyone who makes that decision to rob another human of their life when they are pretty clearly not an actual threat, has no business wearing a badge and walking the streets as any sort of 'authority figure.'

Defunding the department and training/retraining (re-hires) from the ground up, with more funds allocated to social/community services adjunct to the department instead of military grade hardware is an extremely viable strategy. I have concerns about how much legs it has, given how little many people seem to understand about what it entails. In most scenarios following a defunding/restructure, the officers sent to this particular call would not even have been armed. If he resisted and fled, as happened here, they would have impounded his car, filed the report, and a squad of officers would have been dispatched to apprehend him at the residence listed on his ID. Whether or not those cops had service weapons would have depended on the CO's call. But it isn't likely, even if he fled with a taser. In any event, the difference in circumstances would have been that this guy would have gone back to jail, alive, and both responding officers would still have careers.

The only reason anyone died here was because these cops were carrying guns and had not been properly trained on what do with a fleeing suspect.

Take a look at what Camden NJ did 7 years ago. They didn't go quite to the level that many are advocating for today, but they orchestrated substantial changes that dramatically lowered their VIOLENT CRIME rate. They busted their police union, restructured the force, retrained the officers with a different skillset, and focused on community policing instead of just approaching every single minor call like it needed lethal force. The theory being that if your only tool is a hammer, then all of a sudden every problem starts looking like a nail.

They actually wound up increasing their officer pool, for less money, and with far less violence on both sides.

Steve · #73 ● 06-15-2020, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

I am from a three-generation law enforcement family. I was raised by cops. Good cops, no less. I don't 'hate cops.'

I also highly value law and order.

But not as highly as human rights.

I hate murdering pigs who escalate situations.

I hate murdering pigs who shoot fleeing suspects in the back.

I also hate treacherous pigs who betray their oaths of public duty to lie, cheat, obfuscate, and falsify reports in order to shield their murdering/abusive brethren from accountability.

See, all of you sorry shits are so indicative of the real core of the problem here. Yes, I agree that it is stupid to 'fight with' or 'resist' the police. I agree that in our current climate it is quite likely to get you murdered. That's an indisputable fact.

The problem, since you seem to struggle so gravely with the issue, is that IT IS NOT FUCKING SUPPOSED TO. It isn't right. It isn't the way the law was designed.

A single cop was never have to have such power that ANYone could say "Oh, if you fuck with him, he's going to shoot you. Everyone knows that."

Here you all are, fucking empowering this toxic and unconstitutional abuse of our rights and feeling good about it. "Oh, he was a dumb ass for resisting. He deserved to get shot."

No, motherfucker. No, he didn't. Cops aren't executioners. They aren't judge and jury. Some clueless bastard earlier in this very thread even referred to them as 'peace officers.'

You think shooting a fleeing suspect in the back and then yelling "I got him!" constitutes keeping the peace? And don't give me this 'he HAD to because tazers are a dangerous weapon' line of HORSHIT from one side of your mouth while spewing cop apologist rhetoric from the other. Cops taze fuckers left, right, and all directions. they taze cripples, elderly, children, anybody they damned well please and they get away with it because tazers AREN'T considered especially dangerous or lethal weapons.

But oh no! Now this drunk guy, who was just SLEEPING IN HIS FUCKING CAR UNTIL WE WOKE HIM UP AND CUFFED HIM is surely running away from us at full speed so he can go and use that de-pronged tazer to commit a whole host of heinous crimes.

I 'stoop' to calling names when I am dealing with ignorant, pig-sucking morons who are both actively and passively working to remove the Rights that I hold extremely dear. If you see fit to come onto an open forum and espouse support and praise for officers who use deadly force on fleeing suspects, then you are indeed among those trying to erode my fucking Rights. And your own, in case you're too bog-licking stupid to realize that.

Mr Angry strikes again, why can't you discuss or debate anything without having a tantrum? Not everyone has the same world view as you, once you can accept that you will have less chance of having a coronary in later life due to stress.

Chill out.

**Vedderman** · #74 ● 06-15-2020, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Steve 1 ↗

Mr Angry strikes again, why can't you discuss or debate anything without having a tantrum? Not everyone has the same world view as you, once you can accept that you will have less chance of having a coronary in later life due to stress.

Chill out.

I'm plenty chill. I choose at times to type with an aggressive tone depending on the subject matter. It is for emphasis and effect, not because I am screaming at my computer desk. I was just sitting here sipping an Old Fashioned during most of this discussion.

But at times I can get frustrated with certain things and I am more inclined to communicate aggressively via text in those instances. You're markedly incorrect if you think I take this tone with every discussion I have on this site.

Human rights happen to be an issue with which I have zero tolerance for a 'different world view.' If you're the sort of person who believes it is ethical for a civil servant to murder a man by shooting him in the back while he is running away, then your world view marks you as a sub-human. Those who place so little value on a human life, whatever color, are beneath contempt to me and I address them accordingly.

Thanks for your concern, though.

Steve · #75 ● 06-15-2020, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

I'm plenty chill. I choose at times to type with an aggressive tone depending on the subject matter. It is for emphasis and effect, not because I am screaming at my computer desk. I was just sitting here sipping an Old Fashioned during most of this discussion.

But at times I can get frustrated with certain things and I am more inclined to communicate aggressively via text in those instances. You're markedly incorrect if you think I take this tone with every discussion I have on this site.

Human rights happen to be an issue with which I have zero tolerance for a 'different world view.' If you're the sort of person who believes it is ethical for a civil servant to murder a man by shooting him in the back while he is running away, then your world view marks you as a sub-human. Those who place so little value on a human life, whatever color, are beneath contempt to me and I address them accordingly.

Thanks for your concern, though.

You should join ANTIFA, they too claim to be about equality and human rights, yet they have no tolerance for other peoples ideas or points of view. Anti-fascists acting like fascists, well I never.

Not everybody will have the same life experiences as you so they think differently, you think your cause is noble well fine, others may think you are a leftist asshole. Are they allowed that sentiment or are you going to start waving the ban stick again when you don't like someone's comments?

You must be a Trump supporter, it's the only explanation as to why you take the "My way or no way" attitude...like a fascist.

As so far as me being sub-human if I don't share your opinion, you should scroll up to see my first comment in this thread. That's where I stand on whether he should have been shot or not.

1776 · #76 ● 06-15-2020, 07:08 AM

I have huge concern for human life that's why I don't chug liquor and get behind the wheel like rayshard brooks, don't drive like a fool like rayshard brooks, don't beat up helpless women and children like rayshard brooks, don't carry illegal weapons for criminal activities like rayshard brooks, don't commit false imprisonment like rayshard brooks, don't commit felony cruelty like rayshard brooks and finally I don't endanger the lives of police officers, bystanders or myself by starting a war with the police at a busy fast-food restaurant like...rayshard brooks.

So yes I value human life especially my human life and if some lowlife criminal twat ever pulls a taser on me he had better hope it works because if he misses I won't.