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

[JGrimez]

Even good cops are not going to risk jail time for doing their jobs - you might disagree with those tense situations as it's easy to criticize them in hindsight but when the establishment begins to value violent criminals over the lives of police then you watch how quickly those good cops piss off.

 

[Deru]

Even good cops are not going to risk jail time for doing their jobs - you might disagree with those tense situations as it's easy to criticize them in hindsight but when the establishment begins to value violent criminals over the lives of police then you watch how quickly those good cops piss off.

No, I agree, criticizing them after the fact is nothing like it is in the moment. One of the points of reform is to establish training that helps these officers make better decisions in those moments. It can only help them, it's not meant to punish them.

 

[JessFR]

This is so incredibly disingenuous. "Fleeing suspect" is different than firing a weapon at an officer and forcing that officer to potentially fear for his life/safety and to make a split-second decision.

If the officer really feared for his life, if he really believed he was in immediate risk of permanent life altering injury, I'd be defending him opening fire.

I desperately don't want this to drag shit off topic, but I wanna point out that I fiercely defended George Zimmerman here on ceps some years ago. My point is that I'm not opposed to people defending themselves when they think their life is at risk. And I don't just take whatever side most left wing types are taking.

But that's the problem, I simply don't believe the police officer could reasonably have held those fears in this instance.

He didn't have them when he was chasing Brooks. Because he didn't open fire at that point.

He opened fire when he was hit with one of the taser barbs. He knew it was a taser barb. He knew it wasn't a gun. He knew Brooks was running away, he knew the other officer was there, and so he knew there wasn't a realistic chance of Brooks using the taser to incapacitate him, and then inflict such harm.

He knew Brooks was otherwise completely unarmed.

We know that because we know they'd already searched Brooks.

So there's not a reasonably reason for the officer to hold the kind of fear required to justify using lethal force, at the time he decided to use it.

That is why it wasn't justified. That is why I am siding against him now, while I've sided with other police officers and people like Zimmerman in other instances.

 

[Deru]

Did anyone watch the press conference today? The District Attorney Paul Howard explained how there is no way the officer feared for his life, the officer knew the taser didn't work, the officer excitedly said "Got him!" immediately after shooting him in "excited utterance", offered no medical aid, kicked him while he was dieing on the ground, and also put a bullet into a innocent person's car - which was one of the counts of aggravated assault. The other officer is also turning state's witness because he even said, he called him for help because he wasn't an expert in DUI's, and couldn't believe how it escalated.

Oh, not to mention they can not even fire a taser at a subject running away with his back to them, let alone a firearm in a crowded parking lot.

 

[JessFR]

Exactly. I think this officer was so outraged that Brooks tried to taser him. That he decided to kill him. I don't think he was afraid for his life. I think he wanted revenge.

That's what the evidence indicates to me.

And that is murder.

If I believed the officer honestly feared for his life, or that he feared he was in immediate risk of disfiguring or permanent injury. Even if that belief turned out to be wrong. I would be far more inclined to defend his action.

 

[Deru]

I agree, I would as well. Regardless of how someone wants to try to define me as, I honestly just look at the available information and try to develop an unbiased view that the evidence suggests. I just can not put enough weight on the backward aiming of the taser, and then to find out the officer definitely knew it didn't work because it had been fired twice already, today, just solidified my initial early views.

 

[JGrimez]

If the officer really feared for his life, if he really believed he was in immediate risk of permanent life altering injury, I'd be defending him opening fire.

I desperately don't want this to drag shit off topic, but I wanna point out that I fiercely defended George Zimmerman here on ceps some years ago. My point is that I'm not opposed to people defending themselves when they think their life is at risk. And I don't just take whatever side most left wing types are taking.

But that's the problem, I simply don't believe the police officer could reasonably have held those fears in this instance.

He didn't have them when he was chasing Brooks. Because he didn't open fire at that point.

He opened fire when he was hit with one of the taser barbs. He knew it was a taser barb. He knew it wasn't a gun. He knew Brooks was running away, he knew the other officer was there, and so he knew there wasn't a realistic chance of Brooks using the taser to incapacitate him, and then inflict such harm.

He knew Brooks was otherwise completely unarmed.

We know that because we know they'd already searched Brooks.

So there's not a reasonably reason for the officer to hold the kind of fear required to justify using lethal force, at the time he decided to use it.

That is why it wasn't justified. That is why I am siding against him now, while I've sided with other police officers and people like Zimmerman in other instances.

I agree somewhat and I could understand charging the officer with negligent homicide or manslaughter in order to set an example.
However on the flip side now you're empowering criminals and giving them an acceptable way to attack police and get away.
Do you agree with charging this officer with murder?

EDIT: just saw your comment

 

[Deru]

However on the flip side now you're empowering criminals and giving them an acceptable way to attack police and get away.

How?

 

[JGrimez]

How?

This guy was a piece of shit. I want violent criminals to fear being shot if they're going to act this way after committing crimes and refusing to take any responsibility.
Hypothetically if he was driving drunk and killed your mother, you'd feel differently about how the cops should have removed him from the street.
If that scuffle had ended with an innocent bystander injured, same deal.
I also support putting funding into organizations which can help this guy reform (if he chooses) and to some way alleviate the shitty life situation he finds himself in (if that is indeed the case).
However some people's lives are not that bad or they have the ability to improve their situations but they're simply just cunts. Dangerous, violent cunts. There are many of them and that's why it's better to have shitty police than no police at all.

 

[Deru]

This guy was a piece of shit.

Your thoughts and views make me sad for what type of people you represent, and the problem they continually contribute to society. I could argue you and your views are more dangerous to society than Rayshard Brooks ever was. Would that surprise you? I'm sure you feel justified in what you believe, but would it surprise you to find out you're part of the problem? You honestly don't need to take my word for it, change is coming, regardless. Buckle up, or it's going to be a painful adjustment for you.

Before his death, Rayshard Brooks opened up about life after incarceration - CNN Video

Before Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by a police officer, he spoke with the group Reconnect about his life after incarceration and working towards redemption. CNN's Randi Kaye reports.

www.cnn.com

 

[JessFR]

I agree somewhat and I could understand charging the officer with negligent homicide or manslaughter in order to set an example.
However on the flip side now you're empowering criminals and giving them an acceptable way to attack police and get away.
Do you agree with charging this officer with murder?

EDIT: just saw your comment

I don't really believe in "setting examples". Each individual prosecution should happen in a vacuum. And in a way consistent with similar prosecutions and the law.

What I think, is keeping in mind that I only have the information publicly available, going on that, I agree with the charges that have been laid.

Felony murder in connection with assault.

I don't see how this is giving criminals any way to assault police. Apart from possibly giving criminals. The impression that assaulting police might not result in your death, and well that's just too bad.

The police need to follow the law, if criminals are emboldened because they now know police have to follow the law, that's just too bad.

If you mean giving them an acceptable way to assault police in some other sense, you'll need to explain it in more detail. Cause I'm not seeing it.

All I'm asking is for the police to be subject to and follow the law in how they use force.

That being that they can not use lethal force unless a reasonable person in their position would feel them or someone else is at risk of death or debilitating injury.

If they do, they need to be prosecuted. And a jury will determine if they met that standard or not.

 

[JGrimez]

I could argue you and your views are more dangerous to society than Rayshard Brooks ever was

Then you'd be talking doodoo. Because I would never commit any of those crimes which he has committed.
I want to protect children not make excuses for and defend people who hurt them.

You honestly don't need to take my word for it, change is coming, regardless. Buckle up, or it's going to be a painful adjustment for you.

So everything that these people are promoting and getting away with right now could not happen under a supposed white supremacist system - an actual white supremacist system would simply not tolerate it.
So I thought about how do leftists reconcile that?
Because from their perspective, they're so morally correct that the system has to pretend to be taking them seriously (while secretly it's white supremacist).
They think that they're using the corporate government structure, not the other way around.
They think that their viewpoint is so obviously true and popular that the white supremacist regime, in order to exist, fakes it. It's pandering.
But the people who pander to you are not white supremacists - they'll either agree with you or they're dumb Republicans. People think the white supremacist regime is capitalism or making money.

So most people really hate this movement. You're never going to get the majority of the country to agree with you, so you have to use force.
There's no white supremacist regime that is wanting to be white supremacist but has to capitulate to you because you're so good and moral. That doesn't exist (but that's what some people are pretending).

The only reason these people are succeeding is because they have the establishment (remember, allegedly white supremacist) supporting them.
The cops are not charging the people who are rioting, looting or even killing people.
Now there are many people, who are not down with this subversive agenda, who are itching to go out and do something - and absent the state would crush all of this.
At this point you actually need the police to protect this revolutionary movement (and that's what the police are doing on orders from above).

Ask yourself, at these demonstrations, why have the police been protecting the people protesting their very existence, while arresting the ones fighting those people?
TBH I don't think any leftists really think that deeply about it.
They're just promised power and they can smell it.

 

[mal3volent]

Maybe they should give the cop the death penalty, you know, as a deterrent to other violent, thug cops.

Besides, why should we as taxpayers be forced to support a criminal like him for 40 or 50 more years?

 

[Deru]

TBH I don't think any leftists really think that deeply about it.
They're just promised power and they can smell it.

I think paranoid and stubborn minds ignore the facts right in front of their face and let their imagination run wild. What power would it give me, by the way? I've never experienced any police officer treat me badly, so it doesn't change the game for me.

You use a lot of labels, and yet the way you view it is filled with paranoia. It's so simple, honestly. Prior to this, you are correct, the majority did not want to see change. This has sparked something where that dynamic has changed, use whatever labels you want, it is what it is. I said this over a week ago - it's just honestly that simple. Why do you have to spin it in a conspiracy, it's human behavior, this has been happening since homo sapiens showed up on this planet and learned how to make social constructs.

There is a fundamental flaw in your thinking, it seems, that human behavior and society can't shift quickly, and it seems rooted in the fact that you believe there are mysterious elements and groups of enough power behind these shifts in human behavior, when really that is just ridiculous - human beings are a very complex, diverse set of individuals. I'm not denying there aren't groups who attempt to do what you're saying, my point is they are nowhere near as ominous or have as much far reaching power as you fear they have.

And that, sir, is just one of many things that makes paranoid people dangerous. Because, without realizing it, they are literally just feeding into those groups and giving them power to begin with - fear paralyzes the person with irrational thoughts. I've said this numerous times, you appear like an intelligent person, but your fear makes you irrational. If we had a simple difference of opinions then I would respect that, but you fling paranoid accusations around constantly, so again, your fear manifests in inflammatory comments, sometimes your comments are actually directed at an individual or group of people and incite anger, and this prevents civil discussion, only hurting yourself and everyone in the threads who are trying to have a civil discussion.

 

[JGrimez]

I think paranoid and stubborn minds ignore the facts right in front of their face and let their imagination run wild.

I could say that you ignoring the facts right in front of your face which is why you consider me to be paranoid. You're just uninformed so you cannot grasp what's going on.

What power would it give me, by the way? I've never experienced any police officer treat me badly, so it doesn't change the game for me.

The radical leftists think they're on the verge of creating some communist utopia (and many seem to want to oppress or inflict harm on the ones who disagree with them).

it's just honestly that simple. Why do you have to spin it in a conspiracy, it's human behavior, this has been happening since homo sapiens showed up on this planet and learned how to make social constructs.

Yeah no I don't buy that take of - welp look how quickly everything is changing, completely organically.

that you believe there are mysterious elements and groups of enough power behind these shifts in human behavior, when really that is just ridiculous - human beings are a very complex, diverse set of individuals. I'm not denying there aren't groups who attempt to do what you're saying, my point is they are nowhere near as ominous or have as much far reaching power as you fear they have.

You have a lot to learn, my friend.

And that, sir, is just one of many things that makes paranoid people dangerous.

It's better to err on the side of paranoia than obliviousness. However the actual dangerous people are criminals, people with a lot of anger, psychopaths, people who have been ideologically possessed (by the left or the right). I am none of those things. I am a threat because I speak truth and you are an enemy of truth.

you appear like an intelligent person, but your fear makes you irrational.

I'm not scared. I'm cautious and prepared. And on some level I believe I chose to be incarnated now and to witness and learn from everything that's going (including the apparent breakdown and incremental enslavement of society).
You could say I suffer from a Cassandra complex.

Maybe you are projecting a little as in you feel fear that what I'm saying may be closer to accurate. You feel that I am being irrational, however there's nothing rational about what's happening in our world today. To consider it rational just means you're missing a lot of it or are unable or unwilling to internalize and process it.

your fear manifests in inflammatory comments, sometimes your comments are actually directed at an individual or group of people and incite anger

This I would agree with somewhat but I've gotten a lot better and it's frustration, not fear. I do it out of empathy but I also realize that pushing too hard against someone's belief systems is a violation of their free will, but I don't push it that far. I was insulted by a mod yesterday and I didn't even bite back when I knew that I could have and it was warranted. I've learned over the recent years that the best way to change someone's mind (or to at least get them to entertain your point of view) is by creating rapport. So I like to think that I am charming and eloquent enough for most people to, at the very least, think a little deeper.

 

[Jabberwocky]

so, imperfect system of courts and juries or police state?

There's more options than that. Also, you can have both of what you said. That's very black and white view man.

 

[mal3volent]

There's more options than that. Also, you can have both of what you said. That's very black and white view man.

I just think cops shouldn't be given such broad power. The more the power is spread out the less likely it is to be abused. Even the cowardly cop who murdered the black man by shooting him in the back deserves due process. Even though he said "got him!" and kicked the corpse still lying warm in the crowded Wendy's parking lot where children were present, even that scumbag still deserves due process.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I just think cops shouldn't be given such broad power. The more the power is spread out the less likely it is to be abused. Even the cowardly cop who murdered the black man by shooting him in the back deserves due process. Even though he said "got him!" and kicked the corpse still lying warm in the crowded Wendy's parking lot where children were present, even that scumbag still deserves due process.

Yeah, but your point was black and white and gave just 2 options. It was fallacy.
The point is that we agree here about police being incompetent in US.
However the solution to this is training. Not defunding or punish them. They should be taught in psychology too.
Here, in Finland, cops can actually fight. Most of US cops are pussies who can't control situation with anything else than guns or tazers. They need to be given more combat training and taught how to shoot in leg. 3 or 4 days some junkie was in my town walking with a toy gun, cops came and shot him to leg with MP-5. He didn't put the gun down when told to.
Here's a video of 2 guys attacking police with machete. The police used tear gas to take them down and handled the situation good. Bad quality, but just an example.
This could have led to shooting and it would have been justified, how ever here the police try to do their best not to use deadly force. They can be jerks too and abuse their power.

 

[mal3volent]

I agree, I've been saying we need a whole new way of training them here. The use of deadly force has been accepted for far too long. It's because cops are made into gods here, like they themselves are above the laws they're paid BY US to enforce. I hope that is finally changing.

I think they should be defunded to the extent that police shouldn't be funded and armed as if they are military units. Why does a department that protects a town of 2000 in Arkansas somewhere need a fucking armored truck and who knows what else...

 

[Jabberwocky]

I agree, I've been saying we need a whole new way of training them here. The use of deadly force has been accepted for far too long. It's because cops are made into gods here, like they themselves are above the laws they're paid BY US to enforce. I hope that is finally changing.

I think they should be defunded to the extent that police shouldn't be funded and armed as if they are military units. Why does a department that protects a town of 2000 in Arkansas somewhere need a fucking armored truck and who knows what else...

Well, use of deadly force is neccessary some times but i get what you mean.
I know about the supreme court ruling that cops can't be held accountable for breaking peoples rights, which i find super wrong.
There's lots of that can be done, like having great communities with lots of trust where police knows the people and people aren't scared to call the cops because they might get themselves in trouble.
I read a story about this guy, who was asked to give a drive to some house to get some stuff, the guys went in and shot somebody. The guy was asked for questioning next day, the shooters told cops that they scammed the driver and he didn't know and the guy told the truth, but he got still charged. He was still "Involved" by law.
That's something we all can agree that legal system failed on that case.
I get it's bad to militarize the police. Also how the funding works in US, is that you need to have results and reasons to get money or your funding will be cut. I have read about departments which just order random shit to keep their budged same. Government is really bad at spending money anywhere.