• 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

Deru said:
This is where state laws varying by state to state can get confusing. All I'm trying to accomplish here, and I'm not trying to be difficult, is that we both understand that the murder charge doesn't require premeditation here, which is important because you're asking me what would warrant a first degree murder conviction.
Click to expand...

I concede that I was in the wrong here. From what I can gather, Felony Murder is what's known as "Capital Murder" where I'm at, only difference being that the former doesn't require intent.
 
JessFR said:
It's for the prosecutor to decide if they think there's enough evidence to show that felonies were committed. And apparently they think they can. So it'll be up to a jury not us to decide that.

But just to be clear, I don't care what Brooks did in the past.

Either the cops were justified in shooting him at the time or not, and what Brooks has done in previous criminal offenses has absolutely no relevance in deciding that.
Click to expand...

I said potential swat situatuon. And I didn't mention his past. This whole chain of events would've been avoided had this guy jusy complied with his DUI arrest, but I realize most of your already have your mind made up.
 
mp44god said:
I concede that I was in the wrong here. From what I can gather, Felony Murder is what's known as "Capital Murder" where I'm at, only difference being that the former doesn't require intent.
Click to expand...

Yeah the laws vary so much state by state and even trained lawyers are only ever licensed in a few different states. So none of us are exactly experts in the laws of every state.
 
mp44god said:
I said potential swat situatuon. And I didn't mention his past. This whole chain of events would've been avoided had this guy jusy complied with his DUI arrest, but I realize most of your already have your mind made up.
Click to expand...

Well, you sort of mockingly called Brooks an angel. Several times before now people have attacked Brooks himself as if who he was means he has no rights. But sure if you're not trying to say that I apologize for assuming.

And yes you're right, he could so easily have behaved differently and he'd still be alive. I don't think anyone can sensibly disagree with that.

But that doesn't make the cops justified in shooting him, it doesn't mean it should be tolerated and it doesn't mean it's lawful.
 
mp44god said:
I said potential swat situatuon. And I didn't mention his past. This whole chain of events would've been avoided had this guy jusy complied with his DUI arrest, but I realize most of your already have your mind made up.
Click to expand...

So you're absolutely right here, it could have been avoided. Where it gets complex is the police have very strict procedures about using and escalating force, so the debate isn't if Rayshard Brooks was wrong for what he did, it's if the police officer was negligent and/or criminal in how he handled the situation and his actions when Brooks stopped complying, because we can't have every cop doing whatever he sees fit when someone doesn't comply. It seems so simple, right, just do what you're told and none of this would have happened, unfortunately human behavior just doesn't work that way.
 
Deru said:
So you're absolutely right here, it could have been avoided. Where it gets complex is the police have very strict procedures about using and escalating force, so the debate isn't if Rayshard Brooks was wrong for what he did, it's if the police officer was negligent and/or criminal in how he handled the situation and his actions when Brooks stopped complying, because we can't have every cop doing whatever he sees fit when someone doesn't comply. It seems so simple, right, just do what you're told and none of this would have happened, unfortunately human behavior just doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Brooks' behavior was really stupid, but there are laws about when lethal self defense is lawful.

And there's just no way I can see to honestly argue that he was such a threat at the time they shot him as to meet that criteria of lawful self defense.

Especially since they hadn't opened fire just moments prior, when he was even more of a danger.
 
sewerslide.666mg said:
will never understand how ppl can break the law and or use drugs and still take the side of the pigs
Click to expand...

Such a valid point. By @Soso78 always unique viewpoints, why should the police stop at murdering people running away from them and resisting arrest? They might as well be able to kill people they find with drugs, too, right, since we're just leaving this up to their discretion? Don't drugs poison the community and ruin lives? Why not let the cops just start murdering everyone they want to? Where does one draw the line? Do you want a civilized society or one where you can get immediate satisfaction in your own interpretation of justice? Homo sapiens are just omnivorous mammals, take away societal structure, and watch what they're really capable of.
 
Deru said:
Such a valid point. By @Soso78 always unique viewpoints, why should the police stop at murdering people running away from them and resisting arrest? They might as well be able to kill people they find with drugs, too, right, since we're just leaving this up to their discretion? Don't drugs poison the community and ruin lives? Why not let the cops just start murdering everyone they want to? Where does one draw the line? Do you want a civilized society or one where you can get immediate satisfaction in your own interpretation of justice? Homo sapiens are just omnivorous mammals, take away societal structure, and watch what they're really capable of.
Click to expand...
Taking drugs isn’t comparable to physically attacking someone do cut that shit out.
We don’t all have a civilised society and if there were zero police what do you think would be the outcome? Would u fare ok in a dog eat dog scenario or would u be just another victim?
 
Soso78 said:
Taking drugs isn’t comparable to physically attacking someone do cut that shit out.
We don’t all have a civilised society and if there were zero police what do you think would be the outcome? Would u fare ok in a dog eat dog scenario or would u be just another victim?
Click to expand...

You're right, but my point is, who gets to decide? If we had no police, society as we know it would not exist, it would be terrible. I am not anti-police by any means, we need them, there are a lot of good police officers out there who dedicate their lives to protect us. That doesn't mean Garrett Wolf was even a bad police officer, honestly, he just made very poor decisions that night. That is why, out of all the protests, I would love to see reform that only makes us better, overall, as a society.
 
Last edited:
Deru said:
You're right, but my point is, who gets to decide? If we had no police, society as we know it would not exist, it would be terrible. I am not anti-police by any means, we need them, there are a lot of good police officers out there who dedicate their lives to protect us. That doesn't mean Garrett Wolf was even a bad police officer, honestly, he just made very poor decisions that night. That is why, out of all the protests, I would love to see reform that only makes us better, overall, as a society.
Click to expand...
This is my view on it too
 
Soso78 said:
Taking drugs isn’t comparable to physically attacking someone do cut that shit out.
We don’t all have a civilised society and if there were zero police what do you think would be the outcome? Would u fare ok in a dog eat dog scenario or would u be just another victim?
Click to expand...

Except that's exactly what you're advocating for.

A system where the police can do anything they like and don't have to respect the law.

Cause what they did IS against the law. There are laws about when you can shoot someone and they broke them. Everyone defending it, and especially the ones arguing that it doesn't really matter what the law is, are defending the cops being able to break the law.

Cops getting to be judge jury and executioner is NOT the mark of a civilized society.

Also I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate for having no police, yet several people have acted like people have.

It's such a lazy attempt to create a false dichotomy of it being either a police state, or anarchy. Those are not the only options.
 
Last edited:
There’s a lot of people calling for police to be abolished now.
no police. Can u imagine 😂 lots of those little bitches would be in real trouble if there was no police
 
White_Rose said:
Listen to the eloquence that the speaker expresses in this clip.




Now think of the rhetoric that is being expressed now by "demonstrators."

What's the difference? Everyone in society has been dumbed down to the point that society as a whole is no longer capable of discussion of mutual problems and our inclusion in the solution. Veyy convenient for those in power who tell everyone. don't think, just feel and "TRUST US TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS FOR YOU. That includes the main speaking points of the present left and right leaning "candidates."
Now, ask yourself, is this dumbing down of everyone really what we want? We are no longer informed citizens, we are now all "victims" who need help. That's very convenient for those who want to divide us by factions, then rule us
Click to expand...

I'm actually amazed someone here knows Sowell.
My biggest respects and lots of honor to you sir.
I love how Sowell explained where the black culture in USA is from and he has done lots of research on the subject.
*BOW*
 
Soso78 said:
There’s a lot of people calling for police to be abolished now.
no police. Can u imagine 😂 lots of those little bitches would be in real trouble if there was no police
Click to expand...

Nobody I've seen here has. So bringing it up here repeatedly is just a way of not having to actually engage in adult discussion and instead assign your opponents far more extreme and indefensible positions to argue against rather than the actual ones that were stated.

I don't have to want to abolish the police to think that the police should have to follow the fucking laws. And be held accountable when they don't.
 
JessFR said:
Nobody I've seen here has. So bringing it up here repeatedly is just a way of not having to actually engage in adult discussion and instead assign your opponents far more extreme and indefensible positions to argue against rather than the actual ones that were stated.

I don't have to want to abolish the police to think that the police should have to follow the fucking laws. And be held accountable when they don't.
Click to expand...
I never said anyone here want police abolished.
I haven’t brought it up repeatedly. Prob twice at most.
I think police should follow the fucking rules too.
 
Soso78 said:
I never said anyone here want police abolished.
I haven’t brought it up repeatedly. Prob twice at most.
I think police should follow the fucking rules too.
Click to expand...

Why would you bring it up twice if nobody here was suggesting it?

And if you think cops should have to follow the rules why wouldn't you think this cop should face repercussions for breaking them?

Cause the law says lethal self defense requires that you believe you are facing risk of death of severe injury.

How can anyone think they're facing death or severe injury from someone trying to flee from them?
 
Please stay on topic and not evade the actual political discussion by asking why I'd refer to saying something multiple times as repetition...
 
JessFR said:
Please stay on topic and not evade the actual political discussion by asking why I'd refer to saying something multiple times as repetition...
Click to expand...
Multiple times?
ive just re read and it was once so if anyone needs to stay on topic it’s u.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top