Printable View
He was probably gonna shoot them with that non-lethal weapon that cops blast people with for kicks. Cant have that one both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by hughest4
And they could have 1) shot him when he actually went after the officers gun 2) picked him up after rounding up some help later considering he was without a car and was unarmed. In other words, their ****ing job.
Yeah. I'd say my biggest takeaway here is that the shooter was a pretty ****** cop.
**** 'em.
However you want to put it, he pointed a taser at the officer.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
You're absolutely correct, the taser is non-lethal. That doesn't mean the officer can't fear for his life. The taser is meant to temporarily incapacitate somebody. If that officer is incapacitated it would be extremely easy for Brooks to take his firearm from him. Is there any guarantee that is what happens? No, absolutely not. But Brooks had already demonstrated that he was willing to fight the cops, steal a taser, and point a taser in the direction of the officer. It's extremely likely in that moment that the cop is thinking that if this guy tases me, he might come and kill me. So yes, I think its extremely reasonable for him to fear for his life.
When the guy points the taser at him what is he supposed to do?
Does his partner think so little of him that he is just gonna let this cop get stunned and his gun taken without protecting him? I just want to get in the right hypothetical mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by hughest4
But really, you let the guy run off, get a warrant out, let him sleep it off, talk to a lawyer, and turn himself in the next day. Otherwise you put a warrant out and pick him up the next time you run into him so that he can do his 30 days and pay his 5 grand in fines. You dont shoot him while hes trying to flee.
I assume most facts are legitimate until proven otherwise. That’s why facts are facts. Facts do not discriminate or prejudice. They are just reality. In this instance, the reason you are not disproving the fact is because you are only looking at one side of the equation. You are posting media covered stories which only show one side. We do not see the cases which are legit. We don’t see the cases which don’t end in violence. So yes, the vast majority of cases are legit. You not admitting that, just shows your bias. So what it’s not 99%... is it 95%? 90%?Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
It’s not a partisan thing to bring up unions. It’s a big problem in the police force and in other professions as well. Not wanting to consider all options to stop something you feel is so dire, only proves your bias even more. I’m for all options to make the police even better. Why won’t you consider all options as well?
I haven’t researched every case. But I’m still open to consider all options. Evidently, you are not.
The guy was gonna hit the officer with the taser go up to him and get his gun despite the second officer there? Unlikely. And as I already pointed out in this thread, he was aiming the taser behind him while running trying to hit a moving target. Words cannot express how difficult a shot that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by hughest4
Fearing for his life because the suspect was trying to shot a virtually impossible shot with a non-lethal weapon because he may against all odds hit him and somehow get to him and grab his gun before the second officer can fire at the suspect is unreasonable.
I wouldn’t have shot, I’d have let him shoot the taser because he’d have shot and missed and then he’s out of ammunition and you just run him down until he has nowhere to go, or if he escapes out out a warrant for his arrest and go to his house tomorrow.
If a cop fears for his life because a drunk guy points a non-lethal weapon over his shoulder at him as he’s running away, we have not trained our cops to adequately handle high pressure situations.
Again this shows your inability to understand what a fact is. The fact that 99% of police shootings the officer doesn’t get charged is a legitimate fact. But that does NOT mean that in those instances that the officer wasn’t charged was the correct decision or that they acted legitimately. You are assuming that the stat 99% of officers don’t get charged with a crime means that there in all those cases it was the correct decision. That is an assumption on your part. You haven’t seen the cases so you don’t actually know if them not facing charges is legit or not, you just assumed.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
and it’s not about looking at one side of the equation, I’m posting cases in which the officers weren’t charged despite impropriety by the police because if even one of those stories is legitimate, it opens up the possibility there are mistakes in the 99% of cops who kill someone and don’t face charges. Essentially, it disproves you’re belief that all the cases in that 99% were adjudicated correctly.Even if we looked at all the other instances the media doesn’t cover where the officers were in the right, your belief is that 100% of those 99% of killings where the officer isn’t charged are correct, so any story that shows they aren’t disproves your point.
And yes, bringing up police unions role is not by itself partisan, but the way you did it is. You brought them up because you wanted to portray me as some liberal partisan hack who will oppose any action against a union. Your interest in the topic isn’t a legitimate attempt to try to solve an issue, because you believe all 99% of the cases were handled correctly. So if that is the case, why would you break up unions if they’re not protecting their own from charges as a result of a killing?
As for openness to considering all options, I absolutely think many of the police unions need to be broken up, dissolved or restricted. So your gotcha moment was yet another epic fail. I am very pro union but that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of realizing some unions are flawed, nor does it mean I believe unions can do no wrong. That would be a partisan take more akin to your views (as evidenced by your attempt to Portray the issue in a partisan manner). I also think there are bad teaching unions out there that need to be changed/broken up/etc. crazy right?!
But to answer your question, I don’t know the exact %, but I know it’s not 99%. The stories I posted and the general police misconduct in all other areas we are now seeing everywhere Coupled with the aforementioned blue wall of silence propensity to cover for the misdeeds of other officers and the flaws and infallibility of the justice system (especially when it comes to prosecuting police) tells me the number is flawed. So even if the number is still high like your guesses you mocked me because I believed it was anything other than the official number. Basically if I doubted that number by any amount, I was a SJW, white knight, etc.
So... do you still think that number is absolutely accurate? Did the officers behave correctly in all those cases I posted? Ready to admit your initial attack on my belief the number is flawed was an EPIC failure, and not the result of some SJW gut feeling but an actual knowledge and understanding of the totality of facts, of which you’ve already mentioned you were completely ignorant of beyond that single statistic I posted?
If he was just trying to flee then yes that would be a reasonable thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by benny01
But he wasn't just trying to flee? He pointed the taser at the cop. Clearly we will never know his intent but I feel like its fair for the cop to assume that the guy was pointing it at him with the intent to injure/incapacitate him.
If you watch the video, which I'm sure you have, you can see that the other officer is a significant distance behind him. For all he knows his partner is injured and not adequate backup.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
You are absolutely correct in that it would have been a tough shot for Brooks to hit him with the taser. That is still an extremely risky chance to take. If you are going to just let a guy attempt to shoot you with a taser that either takes a lot of balls or a lot of stupidity. I'm not sure which.
If you have a subjects pedigree information, he is non violent, and he takes off I could see just tracking him down at a later time. But you absolutely do not allow a violent offender to take off from you with a weapon whether its lethal or not. I'm not saying Brooks had a history of being a violent felon because I have absolutely no idea if/what his criminal history was. However, in that moment he initiated a physical altercation with the police and took possession of a taser. In that instance he was absolutely violent and should have been pursued.
It doesn’t take a lot of stupidity, it takes a lot of training. For reference, I’m in the Army. Suffice to say I have never seen anyone ever successfully shoot a target behind them while running away by shooting over their shoulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by hughest4
And even if you think the subject should have been pursued, were not talking about the subject being pursued, were talking about the subject being shot, in the back. I can’t imagine a scenario there where a cop can shoot someone in the back and feel his own life is threatened (well, maybe if the guy strapped a bomb to the cop and had a detonator and was running away and shooting him would keep him from detonating the bomb). It’s a very unlikely scenario that someone shot in the back was posing a threat to the person’s life who shot them in the back. I don’t believe that was the case here.
Certain states have significantly better training for their police officers than others but you are correct, all police officers could use more training. Even the absolute best of the best would benefit from more training. I will also agree with you that its probably extremely difficult to shoot a target while running away from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
There are so many what ifs in a situation like this. Sadly, we will never know the answer to those questions. Regardless of the situation its sad that Brooks got shot and killed. I'm sure (pretty sure) the officer is extremely sad and devastated that he had to shoot and kill somebody. All I'm saying is that I personally feel that it was reasonable for that officer to be fearful.
In a matter of seconds it went from an extremely routine and peaceful arrest to a physical altercation that the police did not win. That resulted in an offender disarming the officer of a non lethal weapon and eventually pointing it him. If somebody is capable of fighting you for no reason, and stealing a weapon and pointing it at you, who the hell knows what else that person is capable of. I believe that unknown would cause most people to be fearful.
With all due respect (you make a good argument and seem to make it in good faith) my response is “so?” If the standard is was he scared I think you win the case. If the standard is was his assessment that his life was endangered correct I think Vlade wins the case. I don’t think this officer should be locked up however I do think he made a poor assessment that lead to him being responsible for someone dying. I do not have a problem with him no longer getting to walk the street with a badge and a gun. If he had a good record otherwise and they wanted to give him a govt job where he didn’t get a gun I also wouldn’t have a problem with that.I think what he thought or what he felt should not dictate if a shooting was justified. Was he correct in his assessment is what should matter. I don’t think he was. I think this sets an appropriate standard for other officers as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by hughest4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
had the guy not started running away? doesn't that infer some distance? a tasers range is 15' so if the guy was further away than that, the officer can't claim fear at all...not even from being tased. and since the guy was running away, the officer can't claim fear he'd get his gun....in other words, fear isn't a reasonable excuse....which leaves what as an excuse to fatally shoot a guy stopped for DUI?Quote:
Originally Posted by hughest4
:yawn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan255
I wonder how many black lives have been saved by police presence?
No hard stat here but id guess way more than lives that have been unjustly taken.
Not an excuse for the taking of any life. But lets not act as if police haven't been an OVERWHELMING positive value in any neighborhood but especially black neighborhoods.