This is why they kneel

what should have happened in Atlanta?

if you think the police should have just allowed him to run off with the police officer's taser, that is the wrong answer. you can't allow someone to run away with an officer's taser, just as you can't allow someone to run away with an officer's gun.

that doesn't even take into account Brooks while running point the taser back at the officer.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/us/at...dys/index.html

Quote:

---

The incident began with a call to police at 10:33 p.m. Friday about a man sleeping in a parked vehicle in the restaurant's drive-thru lane, causing other customers to drive around it, the GBI said in a statement.

Police gave Brooks a field sobriety test, which he failed, the GBI said. He resisted arrest and struggled with officers, the GBI said.

---

Quote:

---

he video from the eyewitness begins in the middle of the struggle between Brooks and two police officers. In the video, an officer is heard telling Brooks to "stop fighting" and "hands off the taser."

"The fight started when they tried to make an arrest ... after that he took a taser and took off," the witness said.

---

Quote:

---

As the scuffle broke up, the video shows Brooks beginning to run from the officers and he is seen holding what appears to be a stun gun in his right hand. It appears one of the officers fires their stun gun at Brooks three times as he runs away.

Witnesses told GBI investigators that Brooks had one of the officer's stun guns.

Shortly after Brooks and one of the officers run by the car of the eyewitness taking the video, a second officer runs by, following Brooks.

---

Quote:

---

The Wendy's surveillance video doesn't show the scuffle, but shows Brooks running away from where police cars are parked. In that video, Brooks appears to point the stun gun at the Atlanta officer.

"At that point the Atlanta officer reaches down and retrieves his weapon from his holster, discharges it, strikes Mr. Brooks there on the parking lot and he goes down," Reynolds, the GBI director, said in a press conference on Saturday.

---

could the police officers have continued chasing him without firing at Brooks, hoping he stops or tires out and doesn't shoot the taser where they could have then apprehended him?

I'm sure ideally there could have been a method that didn't end in death, but what could that have been? what can police do to change how this incident progressed?

whatever people feel about this shooting, what did burning Wendy's do. even for those that think this shooting was wrong/racist, burning Wendy's or any other rioting doesn't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

Yep, shot in the back while fleeing, hasn't changed.

---

Drunk guy has cop taser. What could go wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

Drunk guy has cop taser. What could go wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

That justifies shooting him in the back? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

do you think or is there evidence to support that stop and frisk was only intended to target black people? intended key word, not what it ended up being.

stop and frisk should have been random and not based on race, right?

if it could have been random would it have been more acceptable?

instead of targeting a specific race more, could they have targeted specific areas based on the level of crime related to that area? that could have been anyone black or white.

wasn't the intent of stop and frisk to get guns off the streets?

I said this in 2016..


if it was done to target black people then I do think it was wrong.

---

It’s wrong period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

Drunk guy has cop taser. What could go wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It is amazing that we accept these police actions that are more similar to the repressive government in third countries then other western countries. I guess that what makes us exceptional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

It is amazing that we accept these police actions that are more similar to the repressive government in third countries then other western countries. I guess that what makes us exceptional.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

It is amazing that we accept these police actions that are more similar to the repressive government in third countries then other western countries. I guess that what makes us exceptional.

---

I think we need to change the norms for cops. Right or wrong under the old norm this guy faces no consequences. I think this was a bad decesion. That is different then committing a cold blooded murder. I don’t think cold blooded murder should be the only thing that can potentially get a cop in trouble though. Like any other professional they should be expected to make the right decisions. Don’t use deadly force unless in a situation where your life is threatened. I don’t think this meet that. I also don’t know if “I thought” he had a gun should count anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

I think we need to change the norms for cops. Right or wrong under the old norm this guy faces no consequences. I think this was a bad decesion. That is different then committing a cold blooded murder. I don’t think cold blooded murder should be the only thing that can potentially get a cop in trouble though. Like any other professional they should be expected to make the right decisions. Don’t use deadly force unless in a situation where your life is threatened. I don’t think this meet that. I also don’t know if “I thought” he had a gun should count anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I sort of agree with this. Although I don’t think “I thought” he had a gun is sufficient now. Not by law anyway.

Part of our issue is that we expect/teach professionals to stick together as sort of professional courtesy. Doctors, lawyers, politicians all stick together as well. Cops are no different. The new norm has to be weeding out bad professionals/individuals in all professions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I sort of agree with this. Although I don’t think “I thought” he had a gun is sufficient now. Not by law anyway.

Part of our issue is that we expect/teach professionals to stick together as sort of professional courtesy. Doctors, lawyers, politicians all stick together as well. Cops are no different. The new norm has to be weeding out bad professionals/individuals in all professions.

---

I thought he had a gun seem to be a pretty reliable defense for a police shooting bc if you thought the suspect had a gun you can reasonable say you felt your life was in danger. I am sure it isn’t the only piece of the puzzle. Still it’s a big one. If it turns out he didn’t have a gun maybe the officer shouldn’t get to use his misjudgment as a defense? Again I’m not sure about this but I do think we should find better norms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

I thought he had a gun seem to be a pretty reliable defense for a police shooting bc if you thought the suspect had a gun you can reasonable say you felt your life was in danger. I am sure it isn’t the only piece of the puzzle. Still it’s a big one. If it turns out he didn’t have a gun maybe the officer shouldn’t get to his misjudgment as a defense? Again I’m not sure about this but I do think we should find better norms

---

Yeah generally thinking the suspect was reaching for a gun was a good enough excuse for cops to be exonerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I sort of agree with this. Although I don’t think “I thought” he had a gun is sufficient now. Not by law anyway.

Part of our issue is that we expect/teach professionals to stick together as sort of professional courtesy. Doctors, lawyers, politicians all stick together as well. Cops are no different. The new norm has to be weeding out bad professionals/individuals in all professions.

---

That is the law as written, "I thought he had a gun" is a fully exonerating defense for a cop

he had a gun may be reasonable, I thought he had a gun should require reasons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

he had a gun may be reasonable, I thought he had a gun should require reasons

---

The reason can be extremely vague or ambiguous. Having anything in your hand can be a justifiable reason because “he had something in his hand, I thought it was a gun”. Reaching for any pocket can be a justifiable reason because “I didn’t know what he was reaching for, it could have been a gun”. Any movement towards the officer in semi close proximity can be justifiable because “He could have been reaching for my gun”.

As a Soldier, in order to engage a non uniformed target we must have either seen a demonstrated hostile act or hostile intent. Generally the standard for hostile intent is higher for the military than it is for the police. If we see someone run up to an AK lying on the battlefield and they go to pick it up it’s not a hostile act or hostile intent until they point it at us. Of course we’d have our weapons trained on him in case he does decide to point at us we can light him up first, but in general we’re not allowed to fire until that point.

I wonder how I would fair in court if I shot someone and said I thought he had a gun? And I am untrained, unlike the police, to make those split decisions in a life or death situation, so I wind up killing someone. Kill a man on an assumption or when they retreat no longer threaten my life or others. All because I am untrained, ignorant in accessing a situation and making the right decisions. Should we hold cops, who are trained, to higher accountability? Especially when they mistake combs, pens, and cell phones as a deadly weapon? And who would point a comb, pen, or cell phone at the cops as if it is a weapon in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

In my early twenties, I had a few too many, and pulled into the local farm co-op for a nap. Cops pulled up about an hour later, knew me by name, called me a ****ing idiot, told me to take a nap and not to leave, showed up 2 hours later and followed me home. I live in a rural white community, this guy was shot and killed.

---

I wonder how many anecdotal stories we could find about police doing what they did to you and then the drunk driving off and killing families on the road?