• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Social Justice Here we go again: Killing of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta police

If it were one cop, and one guy with a taser, and the guy with the taser was clearly attacking the cop, then lethal force might be acceptable. Because it's clear in that context that the offender means to do continued harm, and the officer can't be confident in their ability to overpower them.

The problem I have in this case, is there were two cops, and the guy was attempting to withdraw from the confrontation. I can see a bunch of ways this could have easily resulted in everyone surviving, or at least resulted in giving the guy a lot more of a chance to before shooting him.

My problem with this is that this doesn't seem like the point where the right to use lethal force has been met. That point being where it's reasonable to expect that your life or someone else's is in immediate danger.
 
Is a tazer in the classification of "Less lethal" weapons as rubber bullets are?

Then they might technically have justification.

I do not believe so, however.
 
Tasers are classified as less than lethal. That's how they get away with using them willy nilly against us. You don't get to say they're suddenly lethal when they are in the hand of a civilian. That's elementary school level logic.
You're being purposefully obtuse - I've already explained multiple times how this can easily lead to the death of a cop. Considering how many cops are actually murdered by black males, there's no way a cop is going to risk it.
Do you have any self-defense training?

If it were one cop, and one guy with a taser, and the guy with the taser was clearly attacking the cop, then lethal force might be acceptable. Because it's clear in that context that the offender means to do continued harm, and the officer can't be confident in their ability to overpower them.

The problem I have in this case, is there were two cops, and the guy was attempting to withdraw from the confrontation. I can see a bunch of ways this could have easily resulted in everyone surviving, or at least resulted in giving the guy a lot more of a chance to before shooting him.

My problem with this is that this doesn't seem like the point where the right to use lethal force has been met. That point being where it's reasonable to expect that your life or someone else's is in immediate danger.

You say "withdraw from the confrontation" as if that's an acceptable option. Those cops had a job which was to apprehend the suspect and he turned around pointing a weapon at them to try and keep them away.
Hindsight is 20/20. It's very easy to say what should've been done when it's not your life on the line and when it's not you who has to make split-second decisions.
Blame the idiot who put the cop in the situation where he was forced to make one of those decisions. Because if the cop has any hint that his life is in danger then he will shoot (and usually has the right to do so)
Even during a simple scuffle/wrestle with police - a suspect could grab the cop's gun and shoot him with it.
Some incidents are very clear-cut (like George Floyd) but this is not one of those and it's pathetic how some people are going to try and turn every incident political (or raaaaaaaacist)
 
Is a tazer in the classification of "Less lethal" weapons as rubber bullets are?

Then they might technically have justification.

I do not believe so, however.

Tasers are classified as less lethal weapons yes.

However that's not really the point. Legally you can use self defense generally only if a reasonable person would feel that they or someone else were in danger of death or severe injury.

In these circumstances, that requirement doesn't seem to have been reached yet.

Might they have had justification to use lethal force at some point soon after had they not shot him when they did? Maybe, the point, at least the one I'm making, is they didn't have justification yet when they shot him.
 
If it were one cop, and one guy with a taser, and the guy with the taser was clearly attacking the cop, then lethal force might be acceptable. Because it's clear in that context that the offender means to do continued harm, and the officer can't be confident in their ability to overpower them.

I'm just using the language and rationale I've heard actual cops use themselves. A taser is pretty much considered a safe way to immobilize someone. The only risk of death would be a pretty extreme heart condition, I would think. One that a cop on patrol duty wouldn't have.

It is also standard procedure to always call for a second car when you know you're going to have to search someone, do sobriety tests, and potentially arrest them. Especially at night or in high crime areas.

These are all common sense procedures and practices that reduce the need for deadly force. The civilian was not a threat to others. He was on foot and had already been searched. There was no risk of allowing him to escape. They should have put a warrant out for his arrest, called other units in, etc.

You're being purposefully obtuse

oh no, you've crawled in my brain again.
 
Tasers are classified as less lethal weapons yes.

"less than lethal" is the term I've heard, not "less lethal". Just one word, but it's a pretty huge distinction.

less than lethal implies no risk of death. Less lethal implies the risk of death.
 
"less than lethal" is the term I've heard, not "less lethal". Just one word, but it's a pretty huge distinction.

less than lethal implies no risk of death. Less lethal implies the risk of death.

I kinda take both mean the same, or rather that I take both to be equally meaningless.

I kinda see them as just euphemisms for "as close to non lethal as the real world allows".

The language of lawyers and advertisers basically. :p
 

More than 1,000 people in the U.S. have died after police stunned them with Tasers, and the stun gun was ruled to be a cause or contributing factor in 153 of those deaths, a Reuters examination found.
 
So what you're telling me Grimez, is that they actually used lethal force on him before he had done anything other than resisting arrest?

Is that supposed to be better?
 
It's always insane to hear arguments of common sense being twisted.
"So I resisted arrest. Took his taser from his firearm belt. Ran. Turned and pointed a phone at the officer."

*Officer* "Yeah I shot him".

In an opposite universe:

"So he resisted arrest, stole my taser, ran, and got tackled by a K9. I told the stupid shit, "I could have shot you!"

Our universe:

"This sequence of events is so unexpected".
 
I did a bit more research, the order of events as I understand them :

- Brooks is found asleep behind the wheel of his car in the drive thru line of a Wendy's.
- Police open the door, wake him up, and ask him to pull over into a parking spot.
- Brooks falls asleep again, the cop has to wake him back up and he finally pulls out of line.
- Cop calls for backup to administer a sobriety test.
- Brooks is questioned and thoroughly searched.
- Cops attempt to place Brooks under arrest, but he resists and attempts to flee.
- Cops briefly wrestle with Brooks on the ground. One cop pulls out his taser but Brooks takes it out of his hands.
- Brooks starts to run away and is pursued by the other officer who still has his taser.
- That officer fires his taser at Brooks and soon thereafter Brooks fires his, but clearly misses.
- Brooks continues to run for at least a few seconds before the cop decides to fire his gun.

Brooks was running away. The taser missed. He continued to run. He had nothing else on him.

Regardless, the cop decides to take his life instead of letting him go and calling additional units. This was not a heat of the moment decision. He decided to shoot after the taser conflict had concluded.
 
Brooks was running away. The taser missed. He continued to run

In that case I stand corrected, cops definitely in the wrong, not self defence nope, he shot him in old blood, he no longer had the weapon as teasers can't be fired twice can they? And wasn't even facing the cops anymore if he was running away!
 
In this case i don't blame the cops for shooting. The dude was parked in a drive thru totally out of it struggled with the cops two tasers didn't flinch him and he managed to steal a taser and was going nuts and dangerous.
Exactly. The man was not killed for sleeping or being passed out drunk in public.

If you fight the police, steal their weapon (in this case a TASER), flee from them, and attempt to discharge the weapon at them, then yeah, YOU'RE GOING TO GET SHOT and your race does not matter. I really don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

It doesn't matter that he happened to have his back turned and fleeing the moment he was shot. He was still armed and he still posed a threat. Under Tennessee v. Garner, an officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect who poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to officers or the public. The officers on scene had already deployed their Taser trying to stop him (remember, Brooks stole the other one). Sidearm use was the next step.

I don’t understand how this is even a topic. Police were called because a man fell asleep Drunk in drive thru. They did a sobriety test which is standard if they suspect someone is driving drunk. After it was confirmed he was drunk, he is supposed to be arrested. Everything till this point is perfectly normal. Now if someone resists arrest, and gets physical with a cop, steals their taser with the intent to use it on cop, what is the cop supposed to do? Let himself get tased and be left vulnerable to be possibly killed?

Where did the cop do something wrong? How would, in any situation, the protocol be “if person is attacking you, steals your taser and about to use it on you, let him”.
 
The only reason people are jumping on this is because of the current climate. The police talked to him, administered a sobriety test, arrested him when he failed, he physically (violently) resisted, he was tased, he grabbed the taser, turned on the police with the taser, then he got shot. It's all on video. If a violent man tries to use a taser on an officer with a gun, there's a good chance the officer is going to defend himself with his gun. Although the taser is non-lethal, he could have then taken away the officer's firearm. He had demonstrated he was dangerous and was therefore deemed a serious threat in the moment.

If it was a White-European, or Hispanic/latino guy who got shot it would be less controversial and it wouldn't be a national news story. We know this because there are more cases of White and Hispanic guys getting shot (whether armed or unarmed) but we almost never hear about them. This is a product of growing racial hysteria, and the myth of systemic racism in the USA against black people parroted by the racist black supremacist group black lives matter.
 
The fact is that the only correlation between the racial disparity of shootings is the exact same as the racial disparity in violent crime rates. Blacks commit disproportionately more violent crime in America despite being around 13% of the population. Sometimes it’s a VERY disproportionate rate, such as homicide, where they commit 52% of all murders. You can see this in the FBI crime statistics, where it is broken down by crime, arrests, convictions, etc.


Note that 2017 seems to be the final time the FBI broke down crime by ethnicity of perpetrator (interesting), but going back each year yielded similar disparities each time.

More crime = more exposure to police = more shootings. But that doesn’t fit the news’s favorite narrative to generate views, clicks and likes, so you won’t hear it. In fact, studies that focus on the race of the police that shoot minorities actually show that African-American police shoot African-American suspects MORE than Caucasian police, because African-American police are more likely to patrol communities that they were raised in. Source:


There are a few things to note here. This absolutely does not mean that the deaths of African-American suspects are not sometimes bad shoots. They are. This does not mean that some police are not racist, or aren’t criminals themselves, as some can be but the majority are not. In the case of George Floyd, he died of drugs. Did the knee have something to do with it? Yeah probably. The coroner cited the knee as part of the reason he had a heart attack. He had a ridiculous amount of fentanyl in his blood. He had an artery 90% blocked. He had coronavirus.

If he didn’t have enough fentanyl in his system to kill an elephant, and wasn’t forging money or breaking into homes robbing people, was not a violent criminal, did not resist arrest, George Floyd would be alive. I’m totally fucking over people calling Chauvin a murderer before the trial.

You could list other examples of terrible incidents until your hands get tired of typing. You could do the same with bad shoots of white people too. Anecdotal cases in the end will not show you the forest through the trees. It also does not mean that by virtue of being black, you are inherently more prone to crime. There are a number of reasons that explain why they may be, a common one is poverty. These explanations probably run the gamut from reasonable to completely ridiculous, but stats do not explain the why of things, simply the way of things. And the stats are perfectly clear.

One of the biggest factors I think is the media and racist black supremacist groups like black lives matter. They are creating a bad faith narrative to inflame the public every single time a bad shoot happens for the sake of ratings. What should be a tragedy and a discussion on how to prevent it next time becomes a brick they chuck at the American audience to keep people pissed off and watching. They never provide context, relevant statistics, and they practically never run investigative reports as to what happened and what the follow up is. Just the shooting, the coverage of the anger, the hashtags, the celebrities, the arguments and eventually, here’s the verdict, doesn’t that piss you off America? Cue the fireworks and pointless riots.
 
Hmm, police giving up power in any situation to an unstable individual sounds crazy. If he tazed the cop, that could have led to terrible things. Maybe the cop is in the ground, the suspect gets his gun etc. Police have to prepare for the worst. I don't find this shooting unjust and if the shot guy was white, this wouldn't be anywhere. Media is just milking out on the anger of the death of george floyd.
 
The coroner cited the knee as part of the reason he had a heart attack. He had a ridiculous amount of fentanyl in his blood. He had an artery 90% blocked. He had coronavirus

Did he, I never knew that, not once have I read it on here or heard that on the news

See we just see and hear what people want us to know, I can see both sides of the argument

Yes the cop shouldn't of shot him, but like you say what else could he of done in those circumstances, let him run away and hurt a member of the public

Like someone posted earlier cops need trained to handle these situations better so they don't feel the need to shoot if it's not entirely nessesary
 
Top