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

[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.

*crickets*

 

[Rhea]

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

Nope. Not understandable ever.
It doesn’t show relief at avoiding extreme danger, it shows hate and derision and an arrogant supriority.


That you find it understandable puts you in a completely different mindset than me.

 

[Rhea]

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?

It’s vernacular.

And contrary to Derec’s racist assertion that it is “ebonics” which is a black american vernacular that has some interesting scholarly attributes as an actual dialect but is often used as a racist slur by racist people...

Saying “we was ducking” is a very common vernacular in large swaths of America by black, white and hispanic (but rarely asian) Americans. It is extremely common in my lily-white rural northern area where not only do we not have plural for multiple people, we don’t have plural units of measurement, either. “We was digging about 4 foot down when we hit 5 inch of rock. Had to drive 15 mile to town and pick up 10 foot of pipe to leverage it.”

 

[Derec]

It’s vernacular.

Yes, so-called "Affircan American Vernacular", aka Ebonics.

And contrary to Derec’s racist assertion that it is “ebonics”

Why racist? The term was coined by black psychologist Robert Williams.

Saying “we was ducking” is a very common vernacular in large swaths of America by black, white and hispanic (but rarely asian) Americans.

Mostly by uneducated people though, and people trying to sound "street".

It is extremely common in my lily-white rural northern area where not only do we not have plural for multiple people, we don’t have plural units of measurement, either. “We was digging about 4 foot down when we hit 5 inch of rock. Had to drive 15 mile to town and pick up 10 foot of pipe to leverage it.”

Like nails on the chalkboard!

 

[Derec]

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

Logically nonsensical. The shooting of the taser came after the pointing of the taser at the Rofle's head. Therefore, if the shooting decision came before taser being shot, it could still have come after the taser was pointed or during the process of pointing , which itself takes a finite amount of time.

- that makes it murder.

Nope. In no case is it murder as Rayshard Brooks presented a clear and present danger to police officers and others by attacking police and stealing their taser. Conditions for use of lethal force outlined in Tennessee v. Garner were met.

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.

But Rofle did not have the luxury of reviewing the video frame by frame. He had to react in real time, and it was dark. And some firearms are small and compact and easy to conceal.
Besides, a firearm is not necessary. A taser pointed at his head is sufficient grounds for Rofle to use lethal force against Brooks.

 

[Derec]

Arson suspect identified

So the Wendy's arson suspect has been identified, and to thicken the plot even more, she may be the girlfriend Rayshard Brooks spent his last day with and whom he mentioned to the police officers when they were talking to him about the DUI.

Natalie White Accused in Arson of Atlanta Wendy’s Restaurant

Randy Travis, of Fox 5, wrote on Facebook, “Atlanta Fire Rescue investigators believe they’ve identified the woman in this photo who was seen helping set fire to the Wendy’s in the wake of the Rayshard Brooks shooting. They say she’s 29-year-old Natalie White of Gwinnett County. Interestingly, that’s also the name of the girl friend Brooks repeatedly told APD officers had just dropped him off that night at the Wendy’s. We’ve been unable to confirm it’s the same person. We talked to White’s mother Friday and asked whether her daughter knew Brooks. She refused to comment and ended the conversation. AFRD is asking if anyone knows White’s whereabouts to call 404-577-TIPS or the arson tip line 1-800-292-5804.”

I was wondering why the girlfriend has not said anything. If she is in hiding due to arson, that would explain it.

 

[laughing dog]

Logically nonsensical. The shooting of the taser came after the pointing of the taser at the Rofle's head. Therefore, if the shooting decision came before taser being shot, it could still have come after the taser was pointed or during the process of pointing , which itself takes a finite amount of time.

Your response is based on a straw man. I wrote « before pointing »

Nope. In no case is it murder as Rayshard Brooks presented a clear and present danger to police officers and others by attacking police and stealing their taser. Conditions for use of lethal force outlined in Tennessee v. Garner were met.

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.

But Rofle did not have the luxury of reviewing the video frame by frame. He had to react in real time, and it was dark. And some firearms are small and compact and easy to conceal.
Besides, a firearm is not necessary. A taser pointed at his head is sufficient grounds for Rofle to use lethal force against Brooks.

Apparently not since Mr Rolfe was fired.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, so-called "Affircan American Vernacular", aka Ebonics.


Why racist? The term was coined by black psychologist Robert Williams.

The racist part was you hearing non-standard english and assuming ebonics. The usage of singular verbs on plural people is widespread all over and nothing about it is “black vernacular.” But you tried to pretend it was.

Saying “we was ducking” is a very common vernacular in large swaths of America by black, white and hispanic (but rarely asian) Americans.

Mostly by uneducated people though, and people trying to sound "street".

No, not mostly by any stretch of the imagination. It is vernacular. It is not “mostly” by people trying to do anything at all. And your attempt to connect black with uneducated is the racist part. Hence why the “ebonics” comment is completely off base to who uses that vernacular.

It is extremely common in my lily-white rural northern area where not only do we not have plural for multiple people, we don’t have plural units of measurement, either. “We was digging about 4 foot down when we hit 5 inch of rock. Had to drive 15 mile to town and pick up 10 foot of pipe to leverage it.”

Like nails on the chalkboard!

Only if you’re a judgmental asshole, really. For the rest of us, it’s the way they talk. Just like some city/suburban actions or vocabulary are what is normal to you, but is not “wrong,” just because it’s different from me and my neighbors.

But the main point being that your claim that it is Ebonics was wrong and unjustified and a racist conclusion.

 

[ruby sparks]

So the Wendy's arson suspect has been identified, and to thicken the plot even more, she may be the girlfriend Rayshard Brooks spent his last day with and whom he mentioned to the police officers when they were talking to him about the DUI.

Natalie White Accused in Arson of Atlanta Wendy’s Restaurant

Randy Travis, of Fox 5, wrote on Facebook, “Atlanta Fire Rescue investigators believe they’ve identified the woman in this photo who was seen helping set fire to the Wendy’s in the wake of the Rayshard Brooks shooting. They say she’s 29-year-old Natalie White of Gwinnett County. Interestingly, that’s also the name of the girl friend Brooks repeatedly told APD officers had just dropped him off that night at the Wendy’s. We’ve been unable to confirm it’s the same person. We talked to White’s mother Friday and asked whether her daughter knew Brooks. She refused to comment and ended the conversation. AFRD is asking if anyone knows White’s whereabouts to call 404-577-TIPS or the arson tip line 1-800-292-5804.”

I was wondering why the girlfriend has not said anything. If she is in hiding due to arson, that would explain it.

Not a good response by her, the arson. But understandable I guess, in the circumstances.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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.

You still don't get it--you don't get to evaluate this with omniscient vision. It's irrelevant what you can see on the video, what counts is what the cops see.

And what the video is saying is that the cop responded to having something that looked like a weapon being pointed at him--which is exactly my evaluation, also.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

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.

You still don't get it--you don't get to evaluate this with omniscient vision. It's irrelevant what you can see on the video, what counts is what the cops see.

And what the video is saying is that the cop responded to having something that looked like a weapon being pointed at him--which is exactly my evaluation, also.

As a juror I would find your argument without merit, another smokescreen from the police. The man was unarmed unless he pulled a weapon out of his ass.

They came to an unarmed, sleeping man in a car and ended up shooting him in the back as he fled. That's all I need to know as a juror.

 

[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?

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.

*crickets*

Just because he has a taser doesn't mean he doesn't also have a gun.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes. He could also have been holding a popsicle, a banana, a stuffed toy giraffe, and a cup of coffee. It's not as if there isn't a precedent for that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

*crickets*

Just because he has a taser doesn't mean he doesn't also have a gun.

There was no reasonable belief he had a gun. None. Zilch. Zip. Zero.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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.

You still don't get it--you don't get to evaluate this with omniscient vision. It's irrelevant what you can see on the video, what counts is what the cops see.

And what the video is saying is that the cop responded to having something that looked like a weapon being pointed at him--which is exactly my evaluation, also.

You are contradicting yourself. You said he decided to shoot before the taser was fired, not me. They had no reason to think he had a gun. So your statement indicates it was murder.

 

[Rhea]

The left's narrative is...

You harm your credibility by claiming that “The Left” has a single narrative and that the application from this case defines it.
“The Left” is not a hive mind. It never has been.
Either you know that, and you’re being unnecessarily and distractingly hyperbolic; or you don’t know that and your whole argument suffers from the basic flaw of superficiality.

(But thank you for describing the content of the link so people can discuss without going off to other sites for background.)

 

[Derec]

“The Left” is not a hive mind. It never has been.

It increasingly is, especially on this issue.

 

[Derec]

The man was unarmed unless he pulled a weapon out of his ass.

He was armed with a taser.
By the way, DA Paul Howard claimed tasers were "deadly weapons" just days ago, but now a taser-wielding violent perp is not a threat according to him.

Earlier this month, Howard charged six Atlanta police officers with using excessive force in pulling two college students out of a car during a protest. In justifying charges of aggravated assault against some of the officers, Howard said a Taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law.

He changes his position just to be able to jam up some cops.

They came to an unarmed, sleeping man in a car and ended up shooting him in the back as he fled. That's all I need to know as a juror.

I hope you are never on any jury whatsoever. Not even for a speeding ticket.

They came to an "unarmed, sleeping man" and after a 40 minute conversation and investigation for DUI they tried to arrest him, upon which he attacked the officers, punched one of them, and armed himself with a taser. Your summary conveniently and disingenuously omits all that.

 

[Derec]

Not a good response by her, the arson. But understandable I guess, in the circumstances.

You are so very understanding of certain kinds of criminal behavior. In my opinion, being dickmatized does not make arson understandable.

By the way, there have been at least two shootings in the vicinity of the former Wendy's.
Second shooting in less than 24 hours as protests continue at Atlanta Wendy's

A man has been taken to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the leg after a shooting near the scene of ongoing protests in Atlanta.
Police said officers were called to the area of University Avenue and Pryor Road around 6 p.m. to reports of a person shot. They arrived to find a 35-year-old man shot in the leg.
[..]
Less than 24 hours earlier, a woman was shot in the leg near the same location. According to the police, she said she was at a protest and vigil when she heard gunshots. She said the person was firing randomly and hit her in the leg.

Peaceful protests my ass! Do you find that "understandable" too?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

They came to an "unarmed, sleeping man" and after a 40 minute conversation and investigation for DUI they tried to arrest him, upon which he attacked the officers, punched one of them, and armed himself with a taser. Your summary conveniently and disingenuously omits all that.

Likely we would get a hung jury then. This was just such a routine nothing that police behavior provoked into a giant something.

There are lots of folks who will excuse police behavior no matter what, such as yourself. I don't put police into a special class as you do. If they can't take the heat they ought to find another job same as anyone else. Poorly trained officers often escalate harmless situations because they're poorly trained. But they are still responsible.

You disagree. Fine by me.