• 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

alasdairm said:
they're not my words.

your position seems, at best, a bit muddled...

interesting coincidence (actually i doubt it's a coincidence but...) i was just browsing linkedin on my phone and, in my feed, was an ad for https://www.mytherapycards.com/.

the creator - dr. ebony who is a black woman - use the term "women of color" throughout her site. she seems to have little problem with the adjective "of color".

i think you're trying to manufacture a 'gotcha!' moment here when there is none.

alasdair
Click to expand...

I hear if you have white guilt, the first session is free!
 
alasdairm said:
i'm pretty sure i never said anything about abolishing the police.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Nobody has in this entire thread. But it sure seems like everyone defending this cop has pretended that's what's being argued at least once or twice now.

I'm at the point of giving up on this thread (actually I repeatedly feel stupid for not having given up on ceps entirely long ago) because some people repeatedly argue points nobody has made to dodge the ones that have been made.

If seen the the "you want to abolish the police" bs a bunch of times but it's next to impossible to get someone to explain exactly how someone can feel their life is at risk from someone trying to run away form them. The actual legal point this whole thing revolves around.
 
JessFR said:
how someone can feel their life is at risk from someone trying to run away form them
Click to expand...
Exactly this. The cop was at risk AS Brooks turned to fire the taser at him. If Brooks had been shot at this point then the shooting is justified. However, the cop was no longer at risk of injury or death AFTER the taser was fired so at this point the shooting is not justified.

@alasdairm & @mp44god, I think we can all agree that Brooks was suspected of DUI. At this point he is a suspect and innocent until proven guilty. I think that we can agree that he attempted to evade being taken into custody by the cops, at this point he is guilty of evading arrest/being taken into custody. When he took the taser and fired it at the cop he is not longer innocent, he is guilty of attempting to injure the cop as part of his attempt to evade being taken into custody. Should he have been shot though? See my response to JessFR above.
 
mp44god said:
Furthermore, black could be looked as the absence of color.
Click to expand...

Are you confusing the spectrum of color of light wavelengths with actual, physical color? It would actually be the opposite. White is the absence of color, black is every color. White light is all colors in the color spectrum and black light is the absence of colors. Since skin isn't light, it wouldn't be appropriate to use that analogy.

Besides that caveat, though, I actually would agree with you in the sense that every homo sapien originated from Africa.
 
empeebee said:
The cop was at risk AS Brooks turned to fire the taser at him
Click to expand...

It's interesting to note that the DA will argue the cop was not at risk and knew he was not at risk because the taser had already been discharged twice and was ineffective when Brooks had it.
 
Deru said:
It's interesting to note that the DA will argue the cop was not at risk and knew he was not at risk because the taser had already been discharged twice and was ineffective when Brooks had it.
Click to expand...

Also, lethal self defense requires that either your (or someone else's like the other cop) life is in danger, or at risk of debilitating injury.

A taser doesn't inflict that damage. If it did, the cops didn't have justification to use it in the encounter to start with.

But it doesn't even matter, cause the cop didn't shoot when the guy fired the taser at him. He fired after he had missed with the taser and was trying to flee.

Quite frankly. I think it's absurd to suggest that someone running away from you poses in that moment a potentially lethal threat to you.
 
JessFR said:
A taser doesn't inflict that damage. If it did, the cops didn't have justification to use it in the encounter to start with.
Click to expand...

This, exactly. Even if the defense can argue the police officer didn't know the taser was discharged twice, it is still a non lethal weapon. My guess, however, is the defense will try to muddy the waters by saying it's only "non lethal" when used by a trained professional, which is why I have a feeling it will come down to trying to prove Rolfe knew it had already been discharged twice and posed no threat, period.
 
Well, even a discharged taser can still be used to shock people if you make physical contact with them with it (you can see them doing this early on in the body cam footage actually). But again rayshard wasn't charging the officer or trying to overpower him, he was trying to escape.

And a regular knife arguably poses more risk to people than a discharged taser, so you can hardly argue that it was too dangerous to let him escape with a discharged taser.

And the cop definitely knew at the moment he shot him that the taser had been discharged and no longer could be used at range, because he said in the video that he felt one of the barbs hit him.

I doubt his defense will argue the "professional use" angle. I just don't see a jury buying it.

Id try to emphasize that the officer made a split second decision based on his training, that noone could reasonably be expected to process all the factors and reliably make a perfect decision. And so if that decision was wrong the real blame lies with inadequate training rather than with him.

I could see a jury buying that.

EDIT: I just wanna emphasize, while that's one of the best defenses I can think of. I don't think it's true at all in this case.

I think based on everything I've seen the officer deliberately wanted to shoot Brooks in retaliation for the guy shooting the taser at him, and not anything to do with defending himself or anyone else. Which isn't a justified reason to shoot at all.
 
Last edited:
It gets complex because there are so many charges, so there will be a central defense but then they will also need to chip away at the evidence and facts the prosecutors put forth. I would be surprised if it's not brought up by the defense at some point (the professional use portion). I agree, I think the defense has to go the training route though, or at least part of the central defense, and honestly, I agree with it. That's one of the main things I would like to see reformed, better training, to help these officers make better decisions in these hyper critical moments.
 
Deru said:
It's interesting to note that the DA will argue the cop was not at risk and knew he was not at risk because the taser had already been discharged twice and was ineffective when Brooks had it.
Click to expand...
I think you overestimate rational thinking of a person in a highly charged situation, as underscored by Jess
JessFR said:
Id try to emphasize that the officer made a split second decision based on his training
Click to expand...
Same as we said on the George Floyd thread, cops need more regular assessment and ongoing training. FFS if someone practicing martial can learn to keep it together until it goes badly south, why can't cops?
 
empeebee said:
I think you overestimate rational thinking of a person in a highly charged situation, as underscored by Jess
Click to expand...

Not at all, I'm saying this is what the prosecution will argue. They specifically have already said as much. And also, this is why I would like to see better training, to help these officers in these situations, as I just said previously.

To be clear, when I'm talking about what the prosecution or defense may argue does not neccesarily reflect my own views on the matter. That distinction should be noted
 
Deru said:
To be clear, when I'm talking about what the prosecution or defense may argue does not neccesarily reflect my own views on the matter. That distinction should be noted
Click to expand...
Duly noted dear sir, apologies should I have misconstrued your previous comment.

Let's leave the conjecture regarding prosecution and defense arguments to those parties however and amuse ourselves with talk of many things, of shoes and ships and sealing-wax, of cabbages and kings.

'Cos what we say here makes absolutely no difference to the outcome of the events. We simply express our opinions, disappointments and angers. Though it does make for entertaining and oft' enlightening debate.
 
empeebee said:
Duly noted dear sir, apologies should I have misconstrued your previous comment.
Click to expand...

No need for apologies :) Just wanted to specify on our recent discussion of what may be argued, that was just my speculation of what the prosecution and defense may argue (minus what Paul Howard has already said about Rolfe knowing the taser had been discharged twice and he knew it posed no threat, of course.) I personally think those situations are very charged and rational thought may quickly go to the wayside, and better training can help with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top