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

[ruby sparks]

Imo there is no question these officers should face a punishment for kicking and standing on Mr Brooks when he was on the ground after being shot, and for not administering first aid in a timely fashion. That sort of behaviour from police is completely unacceptable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it was clearly a taser in this case!

If I wasn’t on my phone I’d give you the biggest facepalm ever. I think you’re actually getting worse. For a while there I actually thought that you were getting a bit better. The facts don’t matter to you, just whatever speculation or hypothetical you can come up with to minimise things the way you prefer.

It's night. Cops have missed guns in searches before. How can he be sure it's the captured taser in the split second he had to decide?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The guy was taking a shot at them. Why do you find it unreasonable to think he might be using a gun to do so?

Because he just took the taser right in front of them!!!

Why do you find it reasonable for someone to think a taser is a pistol after seeing that it was a taser???????????!!!!!!!

??!!

??

!!

?

!

Then, after taking the taser, he shot it and the taser wire observably came out!

Then, he was no longer pointing it.

Then, after all that he was running and got shot in the back.

What in the actual fuck, Loren?!

Of course they know he has a taser. The issue is how can they be sure that what's being pointed at them is the stolen taser? The guy was going to be in some pretty serious trouble for his actions at that point, shooting a real gun at the cops would not have been out of line for his actions up to that point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Reaction time. I think the officer had already decided to fire before Brooks fired the taser. It takes upwards of a second to evaluate something like that and decide the threat is gone and that's assuming he even saw the taser fire in the first place.

Given hindsight we know he had an empty weapon--but shootings aren't evaluated on hindsight.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know it's only an internet meme, but still:

View attachment 28243

Except one of them is mistaken, isn't he? Presumably, that number was painted in a specific context. If it's a car space, the orientation will be obvious from the orientation of the numbers around it.

This cartoon is a visual representation of "my truth". No. Truth isn't subjective.

You're assuming it was painted. What if it's just a fallen number? Depending on the font it might not be possible to tell them apart.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm still waiting for one of the usual suspects to respond to the fact that the cops were kicking the guy after shooting him.

Not a good thing to do, but understandable in the heat of the moment when the bad guy punches you and shoots a taser at your head.

Police officers are still people with emotions. They are not ED-209. Even Robocop had some residual emotions due to the human wetware.

Still does not mean he deserves the murder charge.

It's not justified, period. However, we have a very low frame rate--exactly what is the cop doing? Kicking away a weapon is standard practice.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Reaction time. I think the officer had already decided to fire before Brooks fired the taser.

That would make it murder. So why again are you arguing otherwise?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Of course they know he has a taser. The issue is how can they be sure that what's being pointed at them is the stolen taser?

Because pistols don't have taser wires sticking out of them!!

And tasers do not magically disappear and be replaced with a pistol from nowhere. I mean, think critically about what you're saying here. The cop would have had to have blinked while Rayshard threw the taser, then blinked again while Rayshard took a pistol out of his pocket, then been looking up at the sky so as to not notice the taser wire. You aren't making any sense. Besides that, you've got no rational excuse to explain them kicking him after shooting him in the back while he is lying on the ground.

No, Loren. There is one explanation that is most parsimonious with all the data. They got enraged because he physically confronted them and then ran away. Their rage explains why they shot him in the back. Then, explains when they stepped on his shoulders and kicked him.

Your explanation is CRAZY. It's that they were blinking and imagining things. Then, that they suddenly randomly got rageful afterward. My explanation is smooth and rational. Yours is based on warped ideology to be an apologist for criminals who shoot people in the back. Mine is based on logic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm still waiting for one of the usual suspects to respond to the fact that the cops were kicking the guy after shooting him.

Not a good thing to do, but understandable in the heat of the moment when the bad guy punches you and shoots a taser at your head.

Police officers are still people with emotions. They are not ED-209. Even Robocop had some residual emotions due to the human wetware.

Still does not mean he deserves the murder charge.

It's not justified, period. However, we have a very low frame rate--exactly what is the cop doing? Kicking away a weapon is standard practice.

Ridiculous. The kick was in the direction of the dying person. They would be kicking it toward him, not away. Your apologetics makes absolutely no sense.

 

[atrib]

Of course they know he has a taser. The issue is how can they be sure that what's being pointed at them is the stolen taser? The guy was going to be in some pretty serious trouble for his actions at that point, shooting a real gun at the cops would not have been out of line for his actions up to that point.

Well, the cops had frisked him less than a minute ago and he wasn't carrying a gun then. And they were less than 10 yards away from him when he turned back and pointed the taser at the cops, and the cops had eyes. Its possible they had forgotten about the search, and that both the officers were functionally blind. Its also possible that Mr Brooks was holding a ray gun that could disintegrate humans in an instant. But none of those are reasonable assumptions given the facts.

Why the desperate need to defend killer cops who shoot a man in the back as he is running away, and then celebrate by stamping on and kicking his body? Are you trolling for laughs?

 

[ruby sparks]

Because it was clearly a taser in this case!

If I wasn’t on my phone I’d give you the biggest facepalm ever. I think you’re actually getting worse. For a while there I actually thought that you were getting a bit better. The facts don’t matter to you, just whatever speculation or hypothetical you can come up with to minimise things the way you prefer.

It's night. Cops have missed guns in searches before. How can he be sure it's the captured taser in the split second he had to decide?

Not reasonable in this case Loren when everything about how the incident unfolded is taken into account and clearly visible to observers. Please stop emitting verbal diarrhoea, you fucking scummy police violence apologist you. You literally make me want to puke.

Also, just for good measure, and very tellingly as usual, I don’t believe a word of criticism has left your lips yet, so to speak, about both officers apparently physically assaulting Brooks and not giving timely first aid while a man they had just shot lay dying on the ground. And please, don’t bother now. As far as I’m concerned, you missed your chance. Fuck you and your twisted biases.

ETA: Ah. I see I missed your attempted apologetics on that too.

Tell you what. Let’s just cut down on exchanging comments. If we converse less, it’ll give you more free time for masturbation sessions over the hot centrefold in the current edition of Police Monthly.

 

[ruby sparks]

I know it's only an internet meme, but still:

View attachment 28243

Except one of them is mistaken, isn't he? Presumably, that number was painted in a specific context. If it's a car space, the orientation will be obvious from the orientation of the numbers around it.

This cartoon is a visual representation of "my truth". No. Truth isn't subjective.

You're assuming it was painted. What if it's just a fallen number? Depending on the font it might not be possible to tell them apart.

Sorry but what on earth are you even on about?

Quite apart from the fact that if you read my posts I'm clearly not assuming that, the point of the cartoon is obviously not really about the shape that appears to be a number. Duh.

If you like, or if it turns you on in some way, you could even enjoy imagining it’s two policemen standing over another guy they’ve just shot, kicked and stood on, and disagreeing about how many minutes they should wait before checking his pulse.

Whoops. Broke my new rule already about cutting back on replying to you.

Never mind. Forget I asked.

 

[barbos]

I was watching CNN yesterday where one of the witnesses was interviewed and I noticed he repeated "We was ducking" few times. Is that southern English thing? Like double negative?

 

[Derec]

I was watching CNN yesterday where one of the witnesses was interviewed and I noticed he repeated "We was ducking" few times. Is that southern English thing? Like double negative?

No, it' called Ebonics.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Reaction time. I think the officer had already decided to fire before Brooks fired the taser.

That would make it murder. So why again are you arguing otherwise?

Not murder: https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-rayshard-brooks-shooting

I think the more important issue here is that the officer really didn’t know what Brooks was firing at him. The officers hadn’t thoroughly searched Brooks. The quick pat down at the 21 minute mark on the body cam video was not a search. The officer merely checked Mr. Brooks’ pockets for bulges. The officer didn’t even touch Brooks’ upper body, his groin area, or his rear belt line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course they know he has a taser. The issue is how can they be sure that what's being pointed at them is the stolen taser? The guy was going to be in some pretty serious trouble for his actions at that point, shooting a real gun at the cops would not have been out of line for his actions up to that point.

Well, the cops had frisked him less than a minute ago and he wasn't carrying a gun then. And they were less than 10 yards away from him when he turned back and pointed the taser at the cops, and the cops had eyes. Its possible they had forgotten about the search, and that both the officers were functionally blind. Its also possible that Mr Brooks was holding a ray gun that could disintegrate humans in an instant. But none of those are reasonable assumptions given the facts.

Why the desperate need to defend killer cops who shoot a man in the back as he is running away, and then celebrate by stamping on and kicking his body? Are you trolling for laughs?

Look at my post above--he had only had a check of his pockets, he had not been searched.

 

[Trausti]

Of course they know he has a taser. The issue is how can they be sure that what's being pointed at them is the stolen taser? The guy was going to be in some pretty serious trouble for his actions at that point, shooting a real gun at the cops would not have been out of line for his actions up to that point.

Well, the cops had frisked him less than a minute ago and he wasn't carrying a gun then. And they were less than 10 yards away from him when he turned back and pointed the taser at the cops, and the cops had eyes. Its possible they had forgotten about the search, and that both the officers were functionally blind. Its also possible that Mr Brooks was holding a ray gun that could disintegrate humans in an instant. But none of those are reasonable assumptions given the facts.

Why the desperate need to defend killer cops who shoot a man in the back as he is running away, and then celebrate by stamping on and kicking his body? Are you trolling for laughs?

Look at my post above--he had only had a check of his pockets, he had not been searched.

The search is done after the arrest, right?

 

[laughing dog]

That would make it murder. So why again are you arguing otherwise?

Not murder: https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-rayshard-brooks-shooting

I think the more important issue here is that the officer really didn’t know what Brooks was firing at him. The officers hadn’t thoroughly searched Brooks. The quick pat down at the 21 minute mark on the body cam video was not a search. The officer merely checked Mr. Brooks’ pockets for bulges. The officer didn’t even touch Brooks’ upper body, his groin area, or his rear belt line.

Using a conjecture from a site entitled "Active Response Training" (aka gun and police apologist site) as evidence is laughable.

If Mr. Rolfe made the decision to shoot Mr. Brooks before Mr. Brooks fired, that decision had to occur before Mr. Brooks pointed anything at him - that makes it murder.

Moreover, the claim he had not been "searched" is a smokescreen. They patted him down. They had him in their sight and possession the entire time. In order for him to produce a firearm from sudden hidey hole in his body would have required time and movement that would show on the video.

 

[Jayjay]

If Rolfe had any reason whatsoever to think Brooks had a gun, why didn't he search him then? If I was a cop who thought that a guy might have a gun, I would not just settle for a pat down until I found it.