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

[marc]

So, is there still questioning if there are racist police?

Three police officers in Wilmington, North Carolina were fired on Wednesday after a routine audit of dashcam footage caught them having violently racist conversations, including one where an officer said he “can’t wait” to “go out and start slaughtering them fucking [n—words]” in a potential civil war.

 

[barbos]

So, is there still questioning if there are racist police?

Three police officers in Wilmington, North Carolina were fired on Wednesday after a routine audit of dashcam footage caught them having violently racist conversations, including one where an officer said he “can’t wait” to “go out and start slaughtering them fucking [n—words]” in a potential civil war.

That's bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit! Brooks punched a police officer, stole a taser and then deployed said taser at a police officer. This is per se threatening.

He was shot in the back while running away, so he was not threatening at the time.

He was shot while taking a shot at the officer. You persist in ignoring the fact that there isn't infinite time to decide. A fleeing criminal who snaps off a shot at the pursuing officers will most likely be shot in the back, that doesn't make it wrongful.

 

[laughing dog]

Bullshit! Brooks punched a police officer, stole a taser and then deployed said taser at a police officer. This is per se threatening.

He was shot in the back while running away, so he was not threatening at the time.

He was shot while taking a shot at the officer.

Sorry, you are wrong. The fact is he was shot in the back. Which means he was not facing the officer. Which means the officer was not being threatened.

You persist in ignoring the fact that there isn't infinite time to decide. A fleeing criminal who snaps off a shot at the pursuing officers will most likely be shot in the back, that doesn't make it wrongful.

You are the one who willfully ignores the facts. Mr. Brooks was fleeing. He was shot in the back. He did not have firearm. And, the shooter, Mr. Rolfe, has been charged with a crime.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Rolfe will plead to a charge or what verdict will come of the trial. The facts - not your conjectures - indicate Mr. Rolfe did something wrong

 

[atrib]

He was shot while taking a shot at the officer.

That is untrue. Mr Brooks was shot in the back as he was trying to flee from the officers. That is what the video shows, and I don't understand why you keep repeating the lie that Mr Brooks was shot while he was taking a shot at the officers. The fact that Mr Brooks had previously fired a taser at one of the officers is not justification to shoot him in the back as he was trying to flee. Mr Brooks was not a threat to the officers when he was shot in the back, and that makes the shooting a criminal offense. The DA clearly agrees, which is why the officer was arrested and charged.

 

[Derec]

Both atrib and the Hound ignore the fact that Brooks was turned around, shooting the taser at Rolfe, and that human beings have a finite reaction time. it's not like there was a significant time between Brooks turning around and shooting the taser and Rolfe shooting him in self defense. Remember, he just witnessed Brooks giving the other officer a concussion.

By the way, elsewhere in Georgia a perp who tried using an officer's taser on the officer was shot. But this perp is white, so there are no riots, no arson, no racist militia blocking the road and no murder charges. Or any other charges for that matter.

GBI: Man shot by Dalton Police after trying to use officer's stun gun on him

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He was shot while taking a shot at the officer.

Sorry, you are wrong. The fact is he was shot in the back. Which means he was not facing the officer. Which means the officer was not being threatened.

Once again you're taking the god approach--expecting the officers to have omniscient knowledge of the situation. That's not how the law works no matter how many times you pretend it is.

You persist in ignoring the fact that there isn't infinite time to decide. A fleeing criminal who snaps off a shot at the pursuing officers will most likely be shot in the back, that doesn't make it wrongful.

You are the one who willfully ignores the facts. Mr. Brooks was fleeing. He was shot in the back. He did not have firearm. And, the shooter, Mr. Rolfe, has been charged with a crime.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Rolfe will plead to a charge or what verdict will come of the trial. The facts - not your conjectures - indicate Mr. Rolfe did something wrong

Of course he's been charged--that's how it works these days, throw them under the bus to avoid the protests. It says nothing about guilt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He was shot while taking a shot at the officer.

That is untrue. Mr Brooks was shot in the back as he was trying to flee from the officers. That is what the video shows, and I don't understand why you keep repeating the lie that Mr Brooks was shot while he was taking a shot at the officers. The fact that Mr Brooks had previously fired a taser at one of the officers is not justification to shoot him in the back as he was trying to flee. Mr Brooks was not a threat to the officers when he was shot in the back, and that makes the shooting a criminal offense. The DA clearly agrees, which is why the officer was arrested and charged.

You're making the same mistake of assuming omniscience. You can see on the video that he turns and fires at the officers. Given the timing the officer obviously reacted to this. A fleeing suspect can turn away faster than the officer can fire, such cases often result in the suspect getting shot in the back.

 

[Derec]

So, is there still questioning if there are racist police?

Nobody is denying that some police are racist. But finding racist officers in a whole different state does not mean Rolfe is in any way racist.

It is also a fallacy to consider only racism by whites against blacks. Contrary to leftist dogma, blacks can be racist, and often are, including in law enforcement.
Example: Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...reaction time....

Was it reaction time that made him kick Brooks? NOPE. Occam's Razor: anger explains everything.

 

[Jayjay]

Both atrib and the Hound ignore the fact that Brooks was turned around, shooting the taser at Rolfe, and that human beings have a finite reaction time. it's not like there was a significant time between Brooks turning around and shooting the taser and Rolfe shooting him in self defense. Remember, he just witnessed Brooks giving the other officer a concussion.

Since when is "a finite reaction time" a defense? The default action in this case is to not shoot. If there isn't enough time to make a proper judgment, then you err on the side of not taking the shot.

 

[southernhybrid]

Both atrib and the Hound ignore the fact that Brooks was turned around, shooting the taser at Rolfe, and that human beings have a finite reaction time. it's not like there was a significant time between Brooks turning around and shooting the taser and Rolfe shooting him in self defense. Remember, he just witnessed Brooks giving the other officer a concussion.

Since when is "a finite reaction time" a defense? The default action in this case is to not shoot. If there isn't enough time to make a proper judgment, then you err on the side of not taking the shot.

The taser had already been used twice, so it wasn't possible to harm the police. The police should certainly know that. The Atlanta police should also know that it's against policy to shoot or tase a suspect who is running away. And, Brooks wasn't even suspected of a serious crime. He simply fell asleep in his car and had a blood alcohol level that was barely about the legal limit. He resisted arrest? He wasn't even told that he was under arrest. The two cops were obviously unfit to serve as police.

The cops illegally shot him in the back as he was running away out of fear. The cops violated several rules, including kicking and stepping on. him after he was shot and not offering first aide immediately. It doesn't matter that Brooks had a criminal record. He had already served his time. He wasn't dangerous. The criminals here are the cops. I honestly don't understand why that's so hard to understand. And, unlike Mr. Brooks, who was killed without the benefit of a trial, the two criminal cops will get their day in court.

This is just one of several recent cases where the police were acting more like criminals than the suspects. This shit is happening far too often and finally it's being brought to light, which is causing the majority of Americans to want some drastic changes and accountability when the police act illegally.

 

[laughing dog]

Once again you're taking the god approach--expecting the officers to have omniscient knowledge of the situation. That's not how the law works no matter how many times you pretend it is.

Why are babbling about "omniscience" for? He was shot in the back while fleeing. That is a fact.

I expect police officers to refrain from killing suspects until they know what they are dealing with. That is not the god approach - it is a decent human being approach.

Of course he's been charged--that's how it works these days, throw them under the bus to avoid the protests. It says nothing about guilt.

According to kneejerk police apologists, racists and their dupes, whenever a black man is charged, it is evidence that black man did something wrong. His charges are an indication Mr. Rolfe did something wrong. As I pointed out, whether or not Mr. Rolfe ends up pleading guilty or getting a verdict in a trial is something to await.

I realize that even if Mr. Rolfe pleads guilty or is found guilty, there will still be the racists, police apologists and their dupes who will whine about the outcome.

 

[laughing dog]

Both atrib and the Hound ignore the fact that Brooks was turned around, shooting the taser at Rolfe, and that human beings have a finite reaction time. it's not like there was a significant time between Brooks turning around and shooting the taser and Rolfe shooting him in self defense. Remember, he just witnessed Brooks giving the other officer a concussion.

If Mr. Rolfe took the time to assess whether his fellow officer had a concussion, Mr. Brooks would have successively fled and none of this would have happened.

Arguing that Mr. Rolfe was shooting a firearm in "self defense" of a taser shot is ridiculous. Lethal force ought to used only against lethal threats.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both atrib and the Hound ignore the fact that Brooks was turned around, shooting the taser at Rolfe, and that human beings have a finite reaction time. it's not like there was a significant time between Brooks turning around and shooting the taser and Rolfe shooting him in self defense. Remember, he just witnessed Brooks giving the other officer a concussion.

Since when is "a finite reaction time" a defense? The default action in this case is to not shoot. If there isn't enough time to make a proper judgment, then you err on the side of not taking the shot.

What we are saying is that the cop saw "he's pointing a weapon at me" and decided to shoot. That's legitimate. In reality after taking the shot the guy turned away and continued running but the human brain can't perceive this instantly. The human brain is especially poor at recognizing something is no longer a lethal threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both atrib and the Hound ignore the fact that Brooks was turned around, shooting the taser at Rolfe, and that human beings have a finite reaction time. it's not like there was a significant time between Brooks turning around and shooting the taser and Rolfe shooting him in self defense. Remember, he just witnessed Brooks giving the other officer a concussion.

Since when is "a finite reaction time" a defense? The default action in this case is to not shoot. If there isn't enough time to make a proper judgment, then you err on the side of not taking the shot.

The taser had already been used twice, so it wasn't possible to harm the police. The police should certainly know that. The Atlanta police should also know that it's against policy to shoot or tase a suspect who is running away. And, Brooks wasn't even suspected of a serious crime. He simply fell asleep in his car and had a blood alcohol level that was barely about the legal limit. He resisted arrest? He wasn't even told that he was under arrest. The two cops were obviously unfit to serve as police.

Continuing to say he was shot for running away doesn't make it so. He was shot for pointing a weapon at the cops. At that point he had not been searched, they had no way of knowing what he might be carrying and thus no way to be sure the object being pointed was the stolen taser.

As for resisting arrest--that one doesn't pass the laugh test. There's no way he could have thought it was legal to steal a cop's taser.

The cops illegally shot him in the back as he was running away out of fear. The cops violated several rules, including kicking and stepping on. him after he was shot and not offering first aide immediately. It doesn't matter that Brooks had a criminal record. He had already served his time. He wasn't dangerous. The criminals here are the cops. I honestly don't understand why that's so hard to understand. And, unlike Mr. Brooks, who was killed without the benefit of a trial, the two criminal cops will get their day in court.

So long as you continue to misframe the problem there's no way you'll see the actual situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again you're taking the god approach--expecting the officers to have omniscient knowledge of the situation. That's not how the law works no matter how many times you pretend it is.

Why are babbling about "omniscience" for? He was shot in the back while fleeing. That is a fact.

I expect police officers to refrain from killing suspects until they know what they are dealing with. That is not the god approach - it is a decent human being approach.

Changing the words doesn't change the situation, you're calling for omniscience. In a self-defense situation you rarely have all the information.

Of course he's been charged--that's how it works these days, throw them under the bus to avoid the protests. It says nothing about guilt.

According to kneejerk police apologists, racists and their dupes, whenever a black man is charged, it is evidence that black man did something wrong. His charges are an indication Mr. Rolfe did something wrong. As I pointed out, whether or not Mr. Rolfe ends up pleading guilty or getting a verdict in a trial is something to await.

I realize that even if Mr. Rolfe pleads guilty or is found guilty, there will still be the racists, police apologists and their dupes who will whine about the outcome.

It's not when someone is charged. Rather, it's when you see a rush to charge that you should suspect there's a problem. Charge first, investigate later very often means the charges are about politics rather than justice.

 

[Elixir]

Since when is "a finite reaction time" a defense? The default action in this case is to not shoot. If there isn't enough time to make a proper judgment, then you err on the side of not taking the shot.

Not if "you" are a trigger-happy racist cop who perceives an opportunity to murder a nigger an get away with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both atrib and the Hound ignore the fact that Brooks was turned around, shooting the taser at Rolfe, and that human beings have a finite reaction time. it's not like there was a significant time between Brooks turning around and shooting the taser and Rolfe shooting him in self defense. Remember, he just witnessed Brooks giving the other officer a concussion.

If Mr. Rolfe took the time to assess whether his fellow officer had a concussion, Mr. Brooks would have successively fled and none of this would have happened.

Arguing that Mr. Rolfe was shooting a firearm in "self defense" of a taser shot is ridiculous. Lethal force ought to used only against lethal threats.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[Derec]

Not if "you" are a trigger-happy racist cop who perceives an opportunity to murder a nigger an get away with it.

There is zero evidence that either of the two police officers here is "racist". It's funny how little it takes to accuse a white person of racism, but a black person can call all white people "devils" and still gets a pass because of racist double standards.