Y'all are losing the law-and-order argument

I don’t think ( know ) they needed to shoot him, I’m not positive about the law! They probably had as much info as they needed to arrest him later... I know all the crap that happened the next day was illegal!!! Originally Posted by pleasurem

And apparently the Mayor isn't either but I am. The law demands due process. Now, some interpret that to mean he couldn't be fired, some believe it means he has to have a trial before any punishment could take place but isn't being fired punishment?


I'm not a lawyer but I play one of this board.


I think it comes down to, did the officer believe that a lethal weapon was being aimed and fired at him because if that is the defense lawyers argument and the answer is yes, the cop gets off. If the evidence says the cop had to know that a lethal weapon was not being fired at him, the cop gets convicted. It doesn't help the prosecution that just days before in another incident, the Mayor and Chief of Police said officers, Black officers using Tasers on two people who apparently wouldn't get out of their car when told to, used lethal force when they used their Tasers.



The defense can use that to say that whether the Taser was functioning or not, some argue it wasn't, it was a lethal weapon and as such gave the officer the right to use lethal force to protect his life but we could argue what the law says till the cows come home, the jury may be swayed by the mob and not care what the law says, may not care that the law requires them to put themselves in the cops shoes in that moment. Did he have the time to "reason" that the Taser had already been fired and was no longer a lethal weapon? If the jury says yes to that question, the cop is done. If however the jury asks themselves, under those circumstances, you've just been in a struggle, the guy has taken your weapon, your sweating, out of breath, you're running, can we really find that the cop should have known it wasn't a lethal weapon when officials just days before said it was?



What doesn't matter one bit is, was he drunk which would matter had the death not happened. How many people on this board ( CT ) on the news have said that the cop murdered this man for being drunk and falling asleep in a Wendy's drive thru. How dis-honest and ignorant can these people be. Of course they want a conviction so they will lie ( CT ) and say anything to get it.


Being drunk, being asleep has nothing to do with this. Did he blow over a .08? According to what I heard, yes he did. Did that have anything to do with his death? Nope. What had to do with his death is that by resisting arrest and fighting the cops, he committed a felony, something that can lead to using lethal force where a misdemeanor should not. Those that believe the cop should be prosecuted want you to believe he was shot because he was drunk and feel asleep. Nothing could be further from the truth.


You say

They probably had as much info as they needed to arrest him later.

So you let a guy go who just assaulted two police officers and possibly now has a weapon? The question will be asked, "do police have that discretion"? To let a guy who just committed a felony and was fleeing the scene, just let him go on the possibility that they might find him later? Did they have to shoot a man that was running away? If that was all that happened, no but again, that is what those pushing for murder want you to believe. Just a guy running from police to avoid going to jail, no reason to shoot.


But that isn't what happened is it? He ran, he had the officers Taser. He turned and attempted to fire or at least the cop thought that is what he was doing, attempting to hit him with a Taser which could incapacitate him and the suspect could retrieve his gun and use it on the cop.


"He didn't have to shoot him" is what the prosecution will probably say. The defense will say he did have to shoot him because a deadly weapon was aimed and fired at him. That is what the cop thought at that moment. That is a powerful defense IF the jury wants to consider the letter of the law but convict because that is what the mob wants and they don't want any more buildings to burn in Atlanta. Better to let the cop burn.

The video shown last nite - shows the perp pursued - he turns and fires the weapon in his hand at the pursuing officerj - and is then fired upon.

The video shows the perp resisting arrest, taking an officer's weapon and firing it at an officer (taser or not - it is a weapon which can be deadly - a criticized by Libs - so U cannot have it both ways Deadly weapon pointed at a perp,and harmless when pointed at a cop - that hypocrisy does not fly ) .


folks need to understand - You shoot at an officer - you are likely to be shot.
If that is a reason to "Defund, disarm, and Disband" the police forces in America - those supporting that stand are welcome to it - but it won't happen here in Texas (except maybe Austin - and gov Abbott will likely intervene in that crazy lib city council) . In my town the PD has received many shows of support - rightfully so.

The Radical lawyers who think it is routine to throw Molotov cocktails at police (three in NYcity) - will go back frame by frame to find every twisted way to justify charging the officer with murder. When their motivation is radicalism and hate - manifested at a target of opportunity - the Police.

I've never seen a video by which one can determine ... the "level of intoxication" of the person in the video ... which is the reason why I mentioned "impairment" .... I suspect when this matter gets aired out with full reports, sworn statements, and toxicology from autopsies (along with an accurate criminal history) I suspect the world will have an opportunity to assess some "level of HIS intoxication" and perhaps even SOME PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION of why he fell asleep at night in the drive-thru lane and had to be yelled at repeatedly to awaken.

But that IS MY POINT .... the two officers had but a brief moment to be making any such assessment ... and all these folks, including some posting on Eccie, want to tell them how to do their job! My second point is: I can look at the screenshot I posted and tell that there were either some "training issues" or complacency by the officers dealing with this guy from the beginning.

Let's get back to Seattle for a moment ...

Is it easier to control the occupation as it develops or ... after it has been established?

The two officers did not establish CONTROL of the suspect from the beginning. Had they done so, we would have never known about their investigation and activities, they would have their jobs, and the suspect would be alive. Wendy's wouldn't have been burned and one less (or more) thread(s) on Eccie. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would agree with that assertion. At the time the suspect was advised he was under arrest the Officers should have placed him on a vehicle with his legs placed far apart behind him and his hands flat on the surface to minimize his ability to break away and run. The Officers in this case began to cuff the suspect while he was standing straight up with many avenues of escape. The suspect saw an opportunity and he took it.

I would agree with that assertion. At the time the suspect was advised he was under arrest the Officers should have placed him on a vehicle with his legs placed far apart behind him and his hands flat on the surface to minimize his ability to break away and run. The Officers in this case began to cuff the suspect while he was standing straight up with many avenues of escape. The suspect saw an opportunity and he took it. Originally Posted by Levianon17

From what I saw, this guy didn't give the cops any reason, any indication that he was going to be trouble. I don't know that they could have done anything different. I don't think putting him on the hood of the car, feet apart would have stopped this guy from trying to keep those cuffs off.


One talking head on MSDNC said "of course he had to take the cops Taser to protect himself". Lets see them try and argue that in court.


Does Trump's EO now mean that you can no longer arrest a DUI suspect? That you must give him a summons and call him an Uber? I guess under the new EO, when that call came in that an intoxicated man was asleep in the Wendy's drive thru, a social worker who I assume will be on call for immediate dispatch, will have to be present at the scene. Same with a domestic disturbance call. Cops will have to wait for a social worker before they can respond to such a call and if the un-armed social worker is shot and killed, price of doing the "new and improved" policing.

From what I saw, this guy didn't give the cops any reason, any indication that he was going to be trouble. I don't know that they could have done anything different. I don't think putting him on the hood of the car, feet apart would have stopped this guy from trying to keep those cuffs off.


One talking head on MSDNC said "of course he had to take the cops Taser to protect himself". Lets see them try and argue that in court.


Does Trump's EO now mean that you can no longer arrest a DUI suspect? That you must give him a summons and call him an Uber? I guess under the new EO, when that call came in that an intoxicated man was asleep in the Wendy's drive thru, a social worker who I assume will be on call for immediate dispatch, will have to be present at the scene. Same with a domestic disturbance call. Cops will have to wait for a social worker before they can respond to such a call and if the un-armed social worker is shot and killed, price of doing the "new and improved" policing. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yeah, I know he appeared cooperative and non aggressive. But he was goofy as hell. I am not surprised he bolted.

I think a short and simple disclosure should be presented by the officers before they get a suspect out of the car. BTW: This disclosure was presented to me once, when I told the officers my wallet was under my seat and that they were free to fetch it or whatever way they wanted to go.

The officer replied: "No problem son. You can pull your wallet out from under the seat. If you come up with anything other than your wallet - I will shoot you. Should I fail to shoot you, my partner on the other side will." Maybe policing is just different in Texas...

Simple enough disclosure statement and mighty easy to process. Everybody understood it clearly. Besides still being alive, I did not actually get a ticket either.

It does matter: What the LOONS need to comprehend is that a chemically induced state of mind is often what an officer must face WITHOUT the benefit of cam reruns and frame-by-frame analysis with days/weeks of experts providing HOURS of commentary and background information, such as criminal and employment history, etc., etc., with HOURS of time to evaluate what "should have been done"... Originally Posted by LexusLover

From what I saw, this guy didn't give the cops any reason, any indication that he was going to be trouble. I don't know that they could have done anything different. I don't think putting him on the hood of the car, feet apart would have stopped this guy from trying to keep those cuffs off. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yes they could have, and that's the additional training (or RETRAINING) they need as opposed to being disarmed as is the agenda of the CommunistSocialistLiberalAntiT rumpers. They were not in control of the suspect and officers cannot exercise the luxury of assuming that every suspect is going to be complaint. And some ignorant, lunatic news person is now claiming he had to fight the officer to get the officer's weapon to protect himself? From what? Being handcuffed for driving while impaired?

The world just saw what happens when they do. In this instance the results prove the point. It's hardly worth debating.

The failure to take immediate control of the suspect while they detained him long enough to find out what was going on with him is what caused the fight, the taking of the officer's weapon, the chase, the shooting of the officer with the officer's weapon, and the shooting of the suspect ....

The appropriate saying is .... he should have been handcuffed before he became fully awake and alert.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!"

I had a guy who I haven't even talked to in over a decade call me out of the blue one time. He asked me to rent a car for him. I told him "no" because I'm not putting my name on anything because of liability concerns unless I know your lifestyle.

Anyway, I googled his name after I got off the phone with him and that fucker had 5 DWIs and no license. I knew something was crooked about the guy for asking me, but I did not know it was all of that shit... I would probably still be in court after all of the lawsuits because of renting a car for one week for that guy if I did so. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

I used to rent from Enterprise every other week for trips to red zones in MX. One time I noticed a brand new rental with the grill smashed in. When I mentioned it the manager said that was the third rental the renter (a she) returned this week.

So if they do away with Qualified Immunity laws or not, would the cops be liable if the drunk just got a ticket for blocking traffic at the Wendy's then drove off and ran over someone's kids or plowed into a crowd of people after he got his chicken sammich?

I used to rent from Enterprise every other week for trips to red zones in MX. One time I noticed a brand new rental with the grill smashed in. When I mentioned it the manager said that was the third rental the renter (a she) returned this week. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Yeah, I know how that goes. I cut ties with the guy for a reason. He was a cool guy but I could tell he was going down a path that I did not want to follow. But when you don't talk to someone for over a decade, you don't know what the fuck they are doing. That dude probably wouldn't have made it a day before I received a phone call from authorities if I did not tell him "no". I would have been on the hook for everything for all of the stupid shit he was probably about to do.

So if they do away with Qualified Immunity laws or not, would the cops be liable if the drunk just got a ticket for blocking traffic at the Wendy's then drove off and ran over someone's kids or plowed into a crowd of people after he got his chicken sammich? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The discussion with respect to "qualified immunity" is centered on the plaintiff proving a threshold burden of prove to overcome the immunity (that is in fact what "qualified immunity" is in the first place ("qualified"!!!!!!)) and then the plaintiff may proceed with the litigation AND there is also being discussed a "damage" cap on claims to limit the recovery in damages.

As a practical matter you will not find many law enforcement officers who can pay a judgment of any significance, which is why historically efforts have been made to hold the agency responsible/liable on a vicarious basis for negligent hiring, training, and/or supervising. Currently, one usually must make an election between the individual officer and his agency.

Reform may allow both to be subjected to the litigation, which will put the agency and the officer at odds with one another. But as a practical matter the employee and employer customarily are at odds.

The discussion with respect to "qualified immunity" is centered on the plaintiff proving a threshold burden of prove to overcome the immunity (that is in fact what "qualified immunity" is in the first place ("qualified"!!!!!!)) and then the plaintiff may proceed with the litigation AND there is also being discussed a "damage" cap on claims to limit the recovery in damages.

As a practical matter you will not find many law enforcement officers who can pay a judgment of any significance, which is why historically efforts have been made to hold the agency responsible/liable on a vicarious basis for negligent hiring, training, and/or supervising. Currently, one usually must make an election between the individual officer and his agency.

Reform may allow both to be subjected to the litigation, which will put the agency and the officer at odds with one another. But as a practical matter the employee and employer customarily are at odds. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think the best reform would be mostly single car patrols - individual cops will be much more guarded in their responses.

Also, Greg Gutfeld recommends only white cops arrest whites and only black cops arrest blacks to take the racist argument away.

In any case, a black Georgia Sheriff says the shooting was justified.

"(CNN)One day before charges might be filed against the ex-officer who killed Rayshard Brooks, a black Georgia sheriff said the shooting was justified.

Brooks, 27, was killed by an Atlanta police officer Friday night outside a Wendy's restaurant after failing a sobriety test, fighting with two officers, taking a Taser from one and running away.

Officer Garrett Rolfe was fired after footage showed him shooting at Brooks multiple times from the back as Brooks fled. The second officer, Devin Brosnan, is on administrative duty.
Atlanta's police chief promptly resigned. The mayor on Monday called the killing of the black man a "murder."

But Burke County Sheriff Alfonzo Williams said Rolfe's actions were "completely justified.""

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/ra...day/index.html

Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks charged with felony murder

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/of...kiF?li=BBnb7Kz


The Atlanta officer who fatally shot Rayshard Brooks in the back after the fleeing man pointed a stun gun in his direction will be charged with felony murder and 10 other charges, a prosecutor said Wednesday.Garrett Rolfe kicked Brooks while he lay on the ground and the officer with him, Devin Brosnan, stood on Brooks' shoulder as he struggled for life after a confrontation Friday night, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said at a news conference.


DA Paul Howard -



The GBI has opened an investigation of Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard and his use of a nonprofit to funnel at least $140,000 in city of Atlanta funds to supplement his salary, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Channel 2 Action News have learned.



The criminal investigation comes at a time when Howard, Fulton’s DA since 1997, is being challenged in the Democratic primary for reelection and is facing allegations of sexual harassment, which he strongly denies.
https://www.ajc.com/news/local/gbi-o...HbCfGNJcxMJ6O/
If the brooks incident had been a black cop shooting a white guy - there would be no controversy - no charges- and No riots in Atlanta.

Da howard is a crook and racist panderer to OBLM.

I think the best reform would be mostly single car patrols - individual cops will be much more guarded in their responses. Originally Posted by friendly fred

It is my opinion that most patrol units are "one-man" units, but there are certain calls that are mandatory backup calls and most are discretionary backup calls .... particularly in these days. At least a 2nd unit is rolling to the scene in case needed.

So there will be more than one officer appearing at most calls particularly when an intoxicated person is suspected to be the cause of the call for service, which apparently was the case at Wendy's. In fact the Wendy's call would probably have gone South sooner had a 2nd officer not been present. This guy did a quick recovery from his slumber and did an excellent job of evaluating whether or not he could take BOTH OFFICERS at once. And he DID, but got shot in the back running away in his escape after shooting an officer.

My point was and IS: He should have been placed under restraint (cuffed and sitting on the ground or in the back of a unit) LONG BEFORE he made that assessment and acted upon it. We need MORE OFFICERS at scenes like this one. Not less.

the fleeing man pointed a stun gun in his direction

He fired at the officer and hit the officer ...

in the video you can see the officer grabbing his right side and slowing down in his running pursuit to a walk.