Police shooting in Atlanta aka "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-through"

[laughing dog]

The victim was shot in the back as he was trying to flee from the police. He was literally trying to run away from the police, not toward them, and he did not pose an imminent threat to the safety of the officers. In your zeal to defend a trigger-happy cop who chose homicide over doing his job and pursuing the fleeing suspect, you are trying to warp reality into an apologetic narrative that fits your ideology; that police can do no wrong.

To be fair they were pretty much shooting at each other, and as pointed out, a taser in the face could potentially cause severe damage.

That is right of the LP playbook. A taser is not a deadly weapon according to police usage.

 

[ruby sparks]

They eventually gave aid after a few minutes, but other officers had even arrived before then and were just standing there over the body doing nothing.

That seems to happen quite a lot. Police officers just standing over people they’ve shot (usually several times). Or sometimes they handcuff them and then stand over them, doing nothing.

I’m not counting kneeling on their necks.

 

[Derec]

Police are just going to stop policing. Like NYC in the 70s. Look up high as the homicide rate spikes. Again.

Not unlikely when police face death penalty for defending themselves from a perp who attacked them and stole their taser.

 

[Derec]

I’m no expert, but it feels to me as if, in the past, before the recent protests etc, (post-Arbery and post-Floyd, post-the examples of police brutality at the protests) Rolfe might not have been charged?

Even now, he would not have been charged had the perp been white. But blacks are the more equal animals these days.

Paul Howard has served a racist farce today.

Now, there may be an aspect of this in which individual officers, such as Rolfe, are being hard done by, in a way, because they were perhaps still working under the same ‘rules of engagement’ as last year, and perhaps going by their training.

I hope he beats the charges and then sues Howard for malicious prosecution.

I would guess that some will see that as awful, and some will see it as overall fair enough, in the wider scheme of things, and some may see it as a bit of both. But there does seem to have been a bit of a sea-change.

I see it as awful. It will embolden bad guys like Brooks to attack police knowing police will be reluctant to use full force to defend themselves, giving the perps tactical advantage. The blood that will inevitably be spilt in the coming years are on people like Howard and Bottoms. Weak-ass weather-wanes both of them!

 

[Derec]

When was Brosnan supposed to have assaulted him, during the arrest attempt?

It's now assault to not let a perp beat you up - as long as said perp is black.

 

[Derec]

The victim was shot in the back as he was trying to flee from the police. [

He also shot the Taser while fleeing.

He was literally trying to run away from the police, not toward them, and he did not pose an imminent threat to the safety of the officers. In your zeal to defend a trigger-happy cop who chose homicide over doing his job and pursuing the fleeing suspect, you are trying to warp reality into an apologetic narrative that fits your ideology; that police can do no wrong.

He was doing his job. Violence was initiated by St. Rayshard.

 

[Derec]

So it was actually the police who were being criminally reckless and endangering the lives of civilians in their zeal to shoot a drunk guy resisting arrest.

It sucks about the civilian car. But that doesn't make the shooting of Rayshard Brooks in any way, shape or form murder.

And so much for the theory that the victim was going to use a spent taser to hijack a car and terrorize the general population.

It wasn't spent. The perp had another shot left.

 

[Derec]

It's about time that some of these police are being prosecuted for their crimes.

I hope some clear-headed judge drops all charges. These cops were merely defending themselves against a violent perp who attacked them and stole their taser.

 

[Derec]

Charges are being filed against the officer who killed Rayshard Brooks. The prosecutor explained in great detail why what happened was against the Atlanta Police force rules.

This is a racist farce on part of Paul Howard!
The police officers were merely defending themselves against the violent criminal Brooks.

We all know Paul Howard would not be filing any charges had the dead guy been a white guy named Raymond Brooks.

 

[Derec]

It turns out that it was two white women that set the Wendy's on fire.

There seems to be a lot of outside supremacist agitators using BLM and protests for cover causing trouble.

Just because they are white does not make them "white supremacist". Especially in that neighborhood they are far more likely to be #BLM supporters than anything else.

 

[Derec]

So this is just a possible narrative. I am not trying to justify or minimize this guy's behaviors, only explain what the levels of offense are by illustration.

And now please explain to us why MSM is refusing to mention his criminal history (and maybe offer some details so we don't keep guessing and offering "possible narratives").
Instead, they are hiding his criminal history and are focusing on irrelevant details like his daughter's new dress.

So what does the Reich wing want from this information?

Calling people you disagree with "Reich wing" is really uncalled for.

Anyway, I think we should be given such information in cases a perp had been shot by police. Instead of MSM lying to us with the "he rarely got into trouble" bullshit.

 

[Derec]

This is the news report where I watched the footage in slo-mo, and more in close-up than I had before:

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/video/697206

It’s an interview with a Police Trainer who says the shooting was, unfortunately, justified.

It’s Fox News.

A sheriff from southern Georgia, who happens to be black, also called it justified.

A black sheriff says the police shooting of Rayshard Brooks was 'justified.' Atlanta's mayor and protesters disagree

 

[Derec]

I looked at Derec's link but there were several things that made me suspicious. First of all the link had this:"His Sentence Begin Date is April 1, 2001 His Sentence End Date is March 31, 2003. His Max Possible Release Date will be December 31, 2002, giving him credit for time served in jail from the date of his arrest to the date of his sentencing".

Look at it more closely. Those are example dates. The actual date associated with that entry is 12/23/2014.

Are we talking about the same person?

Definitely! His birth year is given as 1993, which would make him 27 years old, same as news reports. Also the mugshot definitely looks like him.

Then, it said he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013, and yet there were several other charges in 2014 and 2016. How was that possible if he was given a 7 year sentence in 2013?

He was serving most of the 7 year sentence on probation? If he was convicted of something else before his probation was complete, he would go back to prison for the original suspended sentence.

That doesn't make sense.

It actually does.

So, I'm skeptical of the information especially when I couldn't find anything about him mentioned in any of the numerous articles written about him in news sources.

You can look up the cases on the Clayton County Court's website. Although, it does not offer much info on how the cases were disposed.
In any case, the fact that the articles written about him hide his criminal history while repeating ad nauseam minute details about his children, is what really grinds my gears. They have a racial narrative, and they are pushing it hard!

But, even if he did have a criminal history, that didn't give the cop the right to kill him by shooting him in the back.

His criminal history helps explain what kind of a man he was. That is the same reason mainstream media are so hellbent on presenting a positive, albeit fictional, portrait of him as somebody who rarely gets into trouble.

If he did something in 2013, he was only 20. Do you not think that people often change once they reach actual adulthood? Our brains aren't even totally developed until around age 25.

It is possible, but evidently it did not happen in his case. Otherwise he would not have passed out drunk in a drive through lane. Otherwise he would not have punched a cop and stolen a taser.

He was 27. His brain should already have fully developed by now.

I don't think we really know the history of this man since what was on the link seemed to contradict itself.

As I said it doesn't, but who you really should be upset about are media like CNN who refuse to report on his criminal history in order not to disturb the hagiography they have constructed.

All I know is that his family loved him as did his friends. If he was guilty of child abuse at age 20, I have no doubt that he could have learned his lesson by age 27, so I find your comment to be very biased since we really don't know the facts.

Well, that's on CNN, NY Times, AJC and the rest of the meda who are derelict in their duty to report all the facts, and not just the facts that support their narrative.

 

[atrib]

I would guess that some will see that as awful, and some will see it as overall fair enough, in the wider scheme of things, and some may see it as a bit of both. But there does seem to have been a bit of a sea-change.

I see it as awful. It will embolden bad guys like Brooks to attack police knowing police will be reluctant to use full force to defend themselves, giving the perps tactical advantage.

Mr Brooks was awakened by the police while he was apparently sleeping in his car after having had some drinks. I very much doubt Mr Brooks started the day telling himself he wanted to attack some police officers that day. This so-called tactical advantage exists only as a figment of your prejudiced imagination, as many black men are actually afraid of encounters with the police, knowing that they (the police) have a long history of murdering black men. Atlanta has a large black population; perhaps you should talk to some of your black neighbors and ask them about how they feel at the thought of having to interact with the police. Or if they view these charges against the killer as a tactical advantage in their war against the police.

And, the officers could not have been defending themselves since the suspect was shot in the back as he was trying to run away. Just like the incident in Charleston a few years ago (also caught on camera) where an officer killed a man by shooting him in the back multiple times as the suspect was trying to run away. The circumstances are similar, and the officer in that case was convicted of murder.

The blood that will inevitably be spilt in the coming years are on people like Howard and Bottoms. Weak-ass weather-wanes both of them!

The blood spilled by rogue police doesn't count, because the victims are black. That is what you are really saying. We should continue to accept criminal police behavior just to maintain the status quo, so that your life can go on as usual.

 

[atrib]

The victim was shot in the back as he was trying to flee from the police. [

He also shot the Taser while fleeing.

After which he turned around and proceeded to run away. Perhaps he resisted and tried to run away because he was scared that the police were going to kill him, which is how things actually worked out. Perhaps Mr Brooks knew something you are not willing to acknowledge, that black people, often rightfully, fear for their lives when they get involved in police encounters. Shooting a man in the back as he is trying to run away is not self defense.

 

[Derec]

After which he turned around and proceeded to run away. Perhaps he resisted and tried to run away because he was scared that the police were going to kill him, which is how things actually worked out.

That's just idiotic. If he hadn't attacked the police, he'd have been fine. In jail, but fine.
He increased the chances of himself getting killed by many orders of magnitude by attacking the police.

Perhaps Mr Brooks knew something you are not willing to acknowledge, that black people, often rightfully, fear for their lives when they get involved in police encounters.

I acknowledge that many black people have a fear of police encounters. But that fear is not rational. Look at police shootings. Most involve armed perps, many of whom discharge their weapon at police. Others were not armed and yet attacked police. The cases of somebody getting shot while not resisting are few and far between.
Also note that many white people get killed by police too. More on per capita than blacks but not that much more as to justify any fear black people might have just for getting arrested for a DUI.

Shooting a man in the back as he is trying to run away is not self defense.

It is when he still has a weapon. That taser was capable of one more shot.

 

[Derec]

Mr Brooks was awakened by the police while he was apparently sleeping in his car after having had some drinks. I very much doubt Mr Brooks started the day telling himself he wanted to attack some police officers that day.

I think it was spur of the moment too. Doesn't mean that others (career criminals as opposed to Brooks who was mostly doing it recreationally) would not use this anti-police climate for tactical advantage against the cops.

This so-called tactical advantage exists only as a figment of your prejudiced imagination, as many black men are actually afraid of encounters with the police, knowing that they (the police) have a long history of murdering black men.

That fear is very much irrational and a product of propaganda. Most police shootings are justified.

Atlanta has a large black population; perhaps you should talk to some of your black neighbors and ask them about how they feel at the thought of having to interact with the police. Or if they view these charges against the killer as a tactical advantage in their war against the police.

I hope none of my neighbors would be into waging a war against police, no matter their color.

And, the officers could not have been defending themselves since the suspect was shot in the back as he was trying to run away. Just like the incident in Charleston a few years ago (also caught on camera) where an officer killed a man by shooting him in the back multiple times as the suspect was trying to run away. The circumstances are similar, and the officer in that case was convicted of murder.

They are different in that, while Walter Scott did struggle with the officer, the officer went and planted the taser on his body. Rofle did not have to do that as St. Rayshard legit took the taser and shot it at police.

The blood spilled by rogue police doesn't count, because the victims are black. That is what you are really saying. We should continue to accept criminal police behavior just to maintain the status quo, so that your life can go on as usual.

No, that's not what I am saying. Police shootings are a small fraction of all homicides.
Take this instance.
Police release photos of man suspected of killing 3 homeless people in 2 weeks

This type of shit happens orders of magnitude more frequently than police being involved in a controversial shooting.

 

[blastula]

No, he had no more taser shots, and he was shot in the back UNJUSTIFIABLY. Your schtick is so weak and tired, Derec.

 

[Derec]

No, he had no more taser shots.

Are you sure? He shot once, and the ATLPD tasers are apparently the two-shot models.

 

[blastula]

That's what the prosecutor said, that it was used twice.

And even if it wasn't, so what? Let him run away, he's not going far. They have his ID.

They could have easily caught him and easily charged him for dui and assault et al. But no, instead, since the dipshit rager Rolfe gets mad, someone had to die for it.