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

[Keith&Co.]

Imo, the violence, the sacking and the resignation seem unnecessary and unjustified in this case.

Beyond that, there is definitely a problem with policing if police feel that they need to shoot someone in these circumstances.

The backlash likely has more to do with the fact that tensions are currently so heightened.

The main point is that no one should be killed by police after falling asleep in their car. Our police are obviously horribly untrained.

It would help if your side didn't continually misframe the situations. He was not killed for falling asleep. He was killed for shooting at a cop.

Cops were there because he was sleeping in the drive thru. Their handling of the situation led to a shooting. He was killed while running away. I'm willing to bet the department conditions of deadly force were not met.

 

[Derec]

Cops were there because he was sleeping in the drive thru.

As is their job.

Their handling of the situation led to a shooting.

Wrong. The police officers were extremely professional and courteous toward the guy. It was his decision to resist arrest and attack the police officers that escalated the situation, ultimately leading to him getting shot.

He was killed while running away. I'm willing to bet the department conditions of deadly force were not met.

Who knows any more what the "department guidelines" are given the anti-police attitude in the current Atlanta leadership.
But given that he showed willingness and had means to inflict bodily harm on police or others (he could have used the taser to carjack someone on University Ave.), the conditions of Tennessee vs. Garner were met in my opinion.

 

[Derec]

DUI merely requires being in control of the vehicle while drunk. While there are times that is wrongful (drunks sleeping it off in their car with no intent to go anywhere and some other edge cases--I would modify the law that it doesn't apply in the parking lot of a drinking establishment, nor on one's own property)

True. The law should be amended such that actual responsible conduct is not penalized.

guy passed out in the drive thru should be guilty of DUI--he obviously drove there drunk.

Almost certainly true. He claimed his girlfriend drove him there, but did she vanish into thin air?
He was an unreliable narrator - at one point he apparently said he thought he was on Old Dixie, which is miles away.

However, after the initial stuff another video showed up. This appears to be a justified shooting. The cops were chasing him, he turns and points something at them (in hindsight, the captured taser but the cops couldn't know it wasn't a real gun) and according to some others (my eyes can neither confirm nor deny) fires it at them. Yes, he was running but taking a shot at them trumps running away.

Yes. It sucks that he is dead, but he is the one who threw his life away over a mere DUI - which has a fairly low penalty if first offense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Our police are obviously horribly untrained.

And/or maybe also horribly over-trained in a not good way.

Yes. I think we agree on this point.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It would help if your side didn't continually misframe the situations. He was not killed for falling asleep. He was killed for shooting at a cop.

Lots of people will be rethinking whether it's a good idea to call the police when someone is asleep in their car.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It would help if your side didn't continually misframe the situations. He was not killed for falling asleep. He was killed for shooting at a cop.

Lots of people will be rethinking whether it's a good idea to call the police when someone is asleep in their car.

No, probably not. The police are the catch-all "someone else needs to deal with thius shit." There really aren't many options. IFF you know the guy, might know a friend. IFF he's wearing emblematics, might call his organisation, whether he's a sailor, soldier, or a Shriner. But even that's just siccing their private police on him.... a call for someone take responsibility because i don't get paid for drunk duty.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes.


Even if they are, they are still weapons that can incapacitate. And an incapacitated police officer can easily be relived of their very lethal handgun.
Rayshard could have easily avoided all this by not acting like a thug. It's on him.

He had not incapacitated anyone, and he had no lethal weapon.

He tried to incapacitate the police officer he shot the taser at, and he previously punched a police officer. He has clearly demonstrated intention to harm police, and they are allowed to defend themselves.
The fired cop should sue the department for wrongful termination. Police officers should not be chips in mayor's political games.

As others have pointed out, he fired and missed with the taser. Which means he was no longer a lethal threat.

Police tasers are not one-shot weapons.

There is only one model of tazer that has three shots. It's unknown if those police were using that model.

Also, tazers maximum range is ren feet. The guy running away was a lot further away than ten feet when he was shot. The cops were in absolutely no danger at that point.

 

[repoman]

It would help if your side didn't continually misframe the situations. He was not killed for falling asleep. He was killed for shooting at a cop.

Lots of people will be rethinking whether it's a good idea to call the police when someone is asleep in their car.

This motherfucker will be lionized by his community and then there will be large corporate donations by the usual shakedown artists.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes.


Even if they are, they are still weapons that can incapacitate. And an incapacitated police officer can easily be relived of their very lethal handgun.
Rayshard could have easily avoided all this by not acting like a thug. It's on him.

He had not incapacitated anyone, and he had no lethal weapon.

He tried to incapacitate the police officer he shot the taser at, and he previously punched a police officer. He has clearly demonstrated intention to harm police, and they are allowed to defend themselves.

They should not use lethal force in a non-lethal situation.

The fired cop should sue the department for wrongful termination. Police officers should not be chips in mayor's political games.

Have you started the Go Fund Me page?

Police tasers are not one-shot weapons.

My understanding is that there one shot models and three shot models. In any event, they are not lethal weapons.

 

[Toni]

It would help if your side didn't continually misframe the situations. He was not killed for falling asleep. He was killed for shooting at a cop.

Lots of people will be rethinking whether it's a good idea to call the police when someone is asleep in their car.

No, probably not. The police are the catch-all "someone else needs to deal with thius shit." There really aren't many options. IFF you know the guy, might know a friend. IFF he's wearing emblematics, might call his organisation, whether he's a sailor, soldier, or a Shriner. But even that's just siccing their private police on him.... a call for someone take responsibility because i don't get paid for drunk duty.

A person falling asleep/passing out at a drive through window is not an uncommon occurrence. It has happened multiple times in my small city. The presumption would be that the person who was 'asleep' had passed out, probably from alcohol intoxication but perhaps from some other type of intoxication or perhaps had a serious medical event such as a heart attack or stroke. Calling 911 would be the correct thing to do, whether this person was at a drive through window or in a parking lot or whatever. Almost always, such cases are because the person was driving too intoxicated to drive and so they passed out. They are obviously in no condition to drive. Where I live, these individuals are most often transported to the ER for treatment of acute alcohol intoxication/poisoning-- something that claims the lives of several people a year where I live.

I admit I have a HUGE problem with driving while intoxicated. I believe that after people are out of medical danger, they should be charged with DUIs, assuming that fits the statutes in the state where the offence occurred.

But police should have sufficient training to be able to handle a drunk resisting without killing the drunk.

Drunk people often resist arrest. Probably drunk people resist arrest more often than they don't. Police officers should be trained to deal effectively with drunks ---absolutely not an easy task-- because they can be unpredictable, combative, and can be in danger of a serious medical event. It should be noted that sometimes a person with diabetes can seem to be intoxicated even if they have not consumed any alcohol but need insulin ASAP. Meanwhile, they can likewise be combative, uncooperative, unpredictable because they are not in control of their faculties. Sometimes, a person can have an unexpected reaction to a medication prescribed for them and also appear intoxicated. Again, this is a medical situation.

 

[Derec]

Burn down Wendy's because the cops were stupid, there?

No, they burned down the Wendy's because some drunk was stupid and attacked two cops. Get your facts straight!

Sure.

So you condone arson? The so-called "liberals" like you and Jarhyn are not even pretending any more, are you?

People are angry and hurt and don't see that they have a voice where it counts. So, make it a problem for those who do.

What do you mean they don't have a voice? The mayor of Atlanta is openly on the side of criminals against the city's own police.
Major newspapers like NY Times are firing editors who do not tow the "rioters good, police bad" party line 100%.

Bruce Wayne had no problem with Superman until after a super-fight knocked over buildings andhis deductible went up.

These anti-police rioters/looters/arsonists are more like the clown rioters in Joker.

 

[Derec]

Rayshard Brooks marked daughter's 8th birthday before police shot him

So? Why is it relevant that he had unprotected sex 8.75 years ago?

Also, what kind of father gets shitfaced for his daughter's birthday? Best case scenario, he was spending his daughter's birthday in Fulton County Jail.

Rayshard Brooks shooting: Use of deadly force by Atlanta police condemned - BBC News

"While there may be debate as to whether this was an appropriate use of deadly force, I firmly believe that there is a clear distinction between what you can do and what you should do," Ms Bottoms said. "I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force."

People should not be fired based on personal opinions of the mayor.

This will have grave consequences for ATLPD recruiting. Who wants to risk their life taking the job for a police department whose leadership doesn't have your back serving a city run by a mayor openly hostile to you?

"(Brooks) did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone,

A bold-faced lie! Brooks punched a cop and stole the taser, then fired it at the cop. That is threat by any definition.

and so the fact that it would escalate to his death just seems unreasonable,"

Brooks is the one who escalated what should have been an uneventful DUI arrest into a violent and armed confrontation.

"It just seems like this is not the kind of conversation and incident that should have led to someone's death."

I agree, but Brooks is the one whose actions led to this.

Also, I wonder if Paul Howard will charge those who torched that Wendy's with arson?

 

[Derec]

There is only one model of tazer that has three shots.

There are also some 2-shot models.

It's unknown if those police were using that model.

It cannot be claimed that he had only one shot then.

Also, tazers maximum range is ren feet.

Source? Also, how many is ren?

The guy running away was a lot further away than ten feet when he was shot. The cops were in absolutely no danger at that point.

He may not have posed an immediate threat, but he was a continued threat to others if he were to be allowed to escape. For example, he could have used the stolen taser to carjack somebody. He has, after all, shown willingness to use violence to get away.

 

[zorq]

Police officers are only allowed to use lethal force when their lives or the lives of others are in immediate danger. You just admitted the threat wasn't immediate. Therefore, this was an unlawful use of force by police resulting in a death. Sounds like something an officer can get fired for.

 

[Derec]

Police officers are only allowed to use lethal force when their lives or the lives of others are in immediate danger. Therefore, this was an unlawful use of force by police resulting in a death. Sounds like something you can fire an officer for.

No, police officers can consider the danger inherent in allowing a violent perp to escape. They had direct knowledge of him being violent.

 

[zorq]

Police officers are only allowed to use lethal force when their lives or the lives of others are in immediate danger. Therefore, this was an unlawful use of force by police resulting in a death. Sounds like something you can fire an officer for.

No, police officers can consider the danger inherent in allowing a violent perp to escape. They had direct knowledge of him being violent.

Yep, Lethal force is only allowed in the face of immediate danger. Police can't just kill people because they might do something later.

 

[Derec]

Are you a lawyer or are we both a bunch of amateurs pissing in the wind?
In any case, it is my understanding that "immediate threat" is not required.

Yep, Lethal force is only allowed in the face of immediate danger. Police can't just kill people because they might do something later.

From the Tennessee vs. Garner decision:

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22.

The word "immediate" does not appear here. Having been attacked before and having the taser stolen constitutes "probable cause" under Garner I believe.

 

[zorq]

Are you a lawyer or are we both a bunch of amateurs pissing in the wind?
In any case, it is my understanding that "immediate threat" is not required.

Yep, Lethal force is only allowed in the face of immediate danger. Police can't just kill people because they might do something later.

From the Tennessee vs. Garner decision:

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22.

The word "immediate" does not appear here. Having been attacked before and having the taser stolen constitutes "probable cause" under Garner I believe.

There is no significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others from a man carrying what the police call a "non-lethal" running away from officers. You think the guy was going to go on a rampage against citizens in their cars with a taser, which again, is considered "Non Lethal"? Nope. That's unreasonable.

Look, here is a government source

STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR USING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE

The law authorizes law enforcement officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to:

1. defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or

2. make an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and, where feasible, they have given warning of their intent to use deadly physical force (CGS § 53a-22 (c)).

The law defines “deadly physical force” as physical force that can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious physical injury (CGS § 53a-3(5)). It defines “serious physical injury” as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ (CGS § 53a-3(4)).

The law specifies that a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not make the use of physical force justifiable to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody (CGS § 53a-22(a)).

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm
Tasers don't qualify as "serious physical injury" Or if they do, then police have been breaking the rules for years now. Likewise with wrestling on the ground. The suspect didn't pose a threat to anyone once he started running away. And there was no immediate threat.

 

[Derec]

There is no significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others from a man carrying what the police call a "non-lethal" running away from officers. You think the guy was going to go on a rampage against citizens in their cars with a taser, which again, is considered "Non Lethal"?

So you concede that "immediate threat" is not necessary?

Less-lethal really, as it can cause death in rare cases, but in any case, incapacitating somebody leaves them vulnerable to other forms of violent attack. It's easier to beat up somebody if they can't defend themselves.

Remember, this guy has already shown propensity to violence. And police only need "probable cause".

 

[zorq]

Yes, I concede there are two options for lethal force. No, Police don't "Only need "probable cause"" to use lethal force. They need probable cause that the suspect intends to commit a felony involving "serious physical injury." I don't think that standard can be met for a man running away with a taser.