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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is zero doubt that he committed multiple crimes but he didn’t deserve to be shot in the back. Twice.

That's the rub. Many people believe that he deserved to be shot in the back, including Derec.

 

[Derec]

That's the rub. Many people believe that he deserved to be shot in the back, including Derec.

There is a difference between deserving something and something being a justified outcome of one's actions.
Hardly anybody deserves death.

 

[repoman]

Are suspects in general feeling more moral justification to resist arrest than before as well?

than before? before what?
the police have been a band of violent thugs used by those in power to oppress anyone who questions them for at least 2 centuries.
the only difference is that over time the bottom tier of society that is the subject of the most amount of that oppression has changed.
or has everyone just forgotten about police water-hosing people in the street, violently attacking unions and strikers, and overtly murdering black people left and right for most of this country's history?

it's becoming a big deal now because enough of the population of the US has been shoved into a lower economic class due to the machinations of republicans, and so a larger percentage of the people are both subjected to this treatment and aware of it whenever it happens due to social media. nothing about police behavior has changed, only the common awareness of it.

Those are some fairly good points, and the municipal fine machine (with privatized collections) that cops feed can be crazily destructive to the underclass.

As shitty as DUIs are anything over $3,000 even for that is too much for a poor bastard.

 

[Derec]

Because it isn’t important to this situation.

It is far more important to the situation than that his daughter had her birthday and wanted to go skating.

The media has the duty to inform, not to write hagiographies. It is relevant that Brooks was a felon.

He got drunk, passed out having driven himself to a Wendy’s. So definitely a DUI. He resisted arrest—something that is not at all uncommon for a drunk person.

But his felony record and parole adds another layer to why he resisted. It's not just that he was drunk, it's that he knew that the DUI was in violation of his probation.
That is relevant to the case and the media burying it and refusing to report it is highly irresponsible!

The police shot him in the back as he ran away.

After he shot the taser at them. After he resisted with violence, punching one of them.

They had other options: he could have been picked up at his home. They had his address and name.

He could not even find his driver's license. Besides he was staying at a hotel as he told them.

There is zero doubt that he committed multiple crimes but he didn’t deserve to be shot in the back. Twice.

Deserve doesn't enter into it. That doesn't mean police committed a crime.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's the rub. Many people believe that he deserved to be shot in the back, including Derec.

There is a difference between deserving something and something being a justified outcome of one's actions.
Hardly anybody deserves death.

I didn't mention death. I said that you believed he deserved to be shot in the back, which because you did not disagree, I take you believe that is what he deserved.

 

[Torin]

So there was a police shooting in south Atlanta. This guy Rayshard Brooks passed out in a hood (just south of former Turner Field where Braves used to play) Wendy's drive-through, as one does, and police were called. They tried taking him into custody, a scuffle ensured, he took a taser off of one of the officers and got shot.
Our weak police chief immediately resigned.

Atlanta police chief resigns over shooting of Rayshard Brooks

Erika Shields showed her weakness when she instituted a blanket "no chase" policy for ATLPD. Then she showed weakness in not going hard after rioters and looters during the George Floyd "protests" and the rioting spread outside the immediate downtown area where it started. Now she showing weakness in immediately resigning even though the shooting looks justified.

What you're perceiving as weakness here might be an attempt to avoid further civil unrest. If the police chief resigns, then more people will feel like things are being done about the death and there will be less chaos as a result in terms of looting, violence, or whatever.

I have no idea if that was the actual thought process in this case, though.

 

[Toni]

It is far more important to the situation than that his daughter had her birthday and wanted to go skating.

How so? He was passed out drunk, not abusing a child.

The media has the duty to inform, not to write hagiographies. It is relevant that Brooks was a felon.

How?

But his felony record and parole adds another layer to why he resisted. It's not just that he was drunk, it's that he knew that the DUI was in violation of his probation.
That is relevant to the case and the media burying it and refusing to report it is highly irresponsible!

It is possible that he was afraid of going back into prison/jail. It is also possible that he was just..drunk. I personally have witnessed people trying to run from cops when they were drunk. They were running because...they were drunk. P.S. Nobody got shot or hurt. Drunk guy went to jail.

The police shot him in the back as he ran away.

After he shot the taser at them. After he resisted with violence, punching one of them.

Nobody is arguing that he didn't do anything wrong. Of course he did. But the police knew who he was, and where he lived. They could have reasonably apprehended him instead of shooting him as he was running away. A taser is not considered a deadly weapon.

They had other options: he could have been picked up at his home. They had his address and name.

He could not even find his driver's license. Besides he was staying at a hotel as he told them.

So, they knew where to find him.

There is zero doubt that he committed multiple crimes but he didn’t deserve to be shot in the back. Twice.

Deserve doesn't enter into it. That doesn't mean police committed a crime.

Shooting someone in the back is generally a crime. Deserve = the police had no other reasonable recourse. In fact, they did have other recourse.

 

[Derec]

What you're perceiving as weakness here might be an attempt to avoid further civil unrest. If the police chief resigns, then more people will feel like things are being done about the death and there will be less chaos as a result in terms of looting, violence, or whatever.

I disagree. Taking the side of criminals over your own officers breeds distrust in the ranks. It's bad for the morale of the recruitment.

And the former police chief has been weak even before all this. It was she who instituted Atlanta's "no chase" policy for example. Although the overly passive Fulton DA is at fault here too.

 

[Derec]

How so? He was passed out drunk, not abusing a child.

Neither was he rearing a child, so why is CNN and other media so obsessed about how many children he has and what he was planning to do for their birthdays?

The media should be about providing information impartially. It should not be about pushing an incomplete at best narrative just because it fits the party line of depicting anybody killed by police in the best possible light.
Let's look at this article by VICE.
What You Need To Know About Rayshard Brooks, the Black Man Shot Twice in the Back by a White Police Officer

Of course, what VICE thinks we need to know about St. Rayshard is nothing about his criminal record. In fact, they report the lies told by his family members and leave it without correction or challenge.

Brooks was a 27-year-old father of three daughters aged 1, 2, and 8, and a 13-year-old stepson.

Brooks, who worked at a Mexican restaurant, told officers he was celebrating his daughters’ birthday, and according to his family’s lawyer, the 27-year-old had taken his 8-year-old daughter to get her nails done earlier on Friday.

Brooks was planning to pick up his daughter again on Saturday and take her skating to celebrate.

Brooks was described as “an outstanding person” by John Wade, a 34-year-old family friend, who spoke to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, adding that Brooks was outgoing, easy-going, and “rarely in any trouble at all.”

“He was kind and rarely even used cuss words,” Wade said. “I don’t understand how this happened. I am disappointed in the police: they could have let him run, his car was there, so they could get his license plate and find him.”

Yeah, "outstanding person" and "rarely in any trouble at all" is not compatible with his rap sheet.
That's not journalism. That's being a PR firm for people shot by police!

It is possible that he was afraid of going back into prison/jail. It is also possible that he was just..drunk.

Likelihood is high that it was the former. That's why it is important for the media to tell the whole story, not a highly one-sided account that paints the bad guy in the best possible light.

I personally have witnessed people trying to run from cops when they were drunk. They were running because...they were drunk. P.S. Nobody got shot or hurt. Drunk guy went to jail.

Did the drunk guy punch a cop and take his taser away? And then used that taser against the cop?
In any case, of course drunks can do stupid shit just because they are drunk. But when there is also other incentive for him to attack police and run, media is derelict hide it in order to not jeopardize the hagiographies they are pushing.

Nobody is arguing that he didn't do anything wrong.

Except for his cousin.

Of course he did. But the police knew who he was, and where he lived. They could have reasonably apprehended him instead of shooting him as he was running away. A taser is not considered a deadly weapon.

It can kill in some cases. But in any case, even incapacitating a cop means you can easily take his gun away.

So, they knew where to find him.

I do not think he mentioned the name of the hotel, just that it was a hotel.

Shooting someone in the back is generally a crime. Deserve = the police had no other reasonable recourse. In fact, they did have other recourse.

Might be semantics, but "deserve" to me is what somebody might be given as a punishment. It does not include bad things that might happen while cops try to apprehend him. If he had run into the street and a garbage truck hit him, he would not have deserved it, but it would still have been a consequence of his action. Same with getting shot after discharging the taser (and having one more cartridge available apparently).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Taking the side of criminals over your own officers breeds distrust in the ranks.

Wrong. Taking a morally consistent and appropriate position creates honor and trust among your comrades because then they know you will speak truth to power on their behalf when necessary instead of dicking them over for cronies. Now, your cronies might in the short term not like it but they will get used to it and know how to predict what you will do, trusting you to do what is right and you will set up a good role model for them to follow. Now why you want to make excuses for not doing the right thing is clear but you need to be reeducated so you will stop your bullshit. Hope that helped.

 

[ruby sparks]

And police tasers can have ranges up to 35 feet. Civilian units are limited to 15 feet.

One small but relevant point regarding the range of tasers; the officer (Rolfe) was holding a taser also, during the chase. But he didn't fire it. I would tend to think that he felt he was too far away from Brooks for it to be effective.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is a difference between deserving something and something being a justified outcome of one's actions.

I don't think it was justified by any reasonable standard. The guy was shot and killed for literally no good reason. If it passes for legally justified in the USA then there is something wrong with the standards. Doesn't matter what colour anybody's skin is. I remember once seeing a video of a half-circle of armed cops, some with angry dogs, all (or most of them) simultaneously shooting to death an old (white) tramp who had stolen a cup of coffee and had a penknife (pulled apparently in order to attempt to defend himself from the dogs).

And I can think of a few other cases in the past where the killing of a white person caused public concern and media coverage, so I don't think it's quite true, as some have suggested, that it has to be a black victim. Though I agree that the latter have been getting more and more coverage and that there has been more outrage (probably for a variety of complicated reasons) even when it's not clear whether, in an individual incident, racism on the part of the police was necessarily part of the mix in that particular case.

I also agree with you about the media coverage regarding the victim in this and other cases. It tends to be a bit too hagiographical. For example, if it's the case (and I'm only going by what I've read here) that Brooks was on parole, that getting arrested would violate that and have adverse consequences for him, then on the face of it, that could explain very well why, after initially complying, he suddenly resisted and ran. As such, it is potentially a key part of explaining what happened and should be mentioned in any thorough or balanced report.

 

[repoman]

He should not be jailed but instead fired and not allowed to be a cop again anywhere.

Basically a mulligan.

 

[ruby sparks]

Also. A few times here people have said that (a) going too softly on protesters/looter/rioters or (b) not backing the officers under your command, both risk encouraging on the one hand more disorder by civilians and on the other hand police distrust of superiors and lowered morale.

But it could also be said that years and years of police often at least partially getting away with controversial actions could easily lead police to lower the threshold of their responses and their resorting to force (including deadly force) because of at least a reduced likelihood of very serious repercussions. A police or law and order or justice culture, at least in some or many forces or precincts, where it's relatively easy to shoot, abuse or brutalise people (of any skin colour or ethnicity) in other words.

 

[repoman]

 

[atrib]

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.

You admit that he was trying to run away and did not pose an immediate threat to the police, and then go on to speculate on what he might have done in the future with zero foundation. How the fuck do you know that? He certainly wasn't bothering anyone until the police showed up. Perhaps he fought the police because he was afraid for his life; perhaps he was just a belligerent drunk. Should we go around killing people because they may become a threat to some undefined group of people at some undefined future point in time? Are the police soothsayers? Did they read some chicken entrails that told them he was going to hijack a car? Why shoot him if he did not pose an immediate threat to the police or to anyone else that we know of? Why shoot him in the back as he is running away instead of chasing him down and arresting him? Why the desperate need to kill him?

 

[atrib]

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.

No, they had direct knowledge that he tried to resist arrest and run away, perhaps while he was intoxicated. This is not grounds to summarily execute someone. Thats the fucking point you don't get, because you don't see black people as human. If this had been a white woman stopped for DUI who had been shot in back by police for trying to evade arrest, you would likely have been singing a different tune.

 

[atrib]

The autopsy was done and the shooting was ruled a homicide. Good. The word is that the cop will soon be charged with either manslaughter or murder.

There were so many better ways this could have been handled without killing the man.

This is the point some people keep missing. Police all over the world deal with belligerent and often violent people without anyone getting killed. Taking a person's life should be the last resort, taken only when the aggressor presents a clear danger to the lives of the police or bystanders. Shooting someone in the back as they are trying to flee is wrong, and if police are being trained to respond this way, reform is needed.

 

[southernhybrid]

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.

You admit that he was trying to run away and did not pose an immediate threat to the police, and then go on to speculate on what he might have done in the future with zero foundation. How the fuck do you know that? He certainly wasn't bothering anyone until the police showed up. Perhaps he fought the police because he was afraid for his life; perhaps he was just a belligerent drunk. Should we go around killing people because they may become a threat to some undefined group of people at some undefined future point in time? Are the police soothsayers? Did they read some chicken entrails that told them he was going to hijack a car? Why shoot him if he did not pose an immediate threat to the police or to anyone else that we know of? Why shoot him in the back as he is running away instead of chasing him down and arresting him? Why the desperate need to kill him?

I totally agree. I actually read about the man who was killed because I always wonder about the people who the victim left behind. This particular man had a wife and three little girls. He was also helping raise his step son, had a full time job at a Mexican restaurant, where his coworkers loved him. They said that he was always the first person to arrive at the start of the day and that he was a hard worker. His family and friends are devastated by what happened. Afaik, he didn't have a criminal background. He appears to be a gentle person who did try to get along with the police when he was initially questioned.

Here's what I think probably happened. When the cops tried to handcuff him, he probably had a fight or flight impulse after watching what happened to George Floyd, after he was handcuffed. So, he probably imagined himself being cuffed and helpless. Then he tried to flee, which I can certainly understand after seeing how many other young black men have been killed by over zealous police officers who have no impulse control. Sure, this sometimes happens to white people, but statistically, it s black folks, especially young black men who are the most often targeted by the police. Nobody should be suspected of being dangerous or violent because of their skin color.

He shouldn't have been shot. The cops could have chased him, or since they knew who he was and had his car, they could have simply let him run and put out a warrant for his arrest. Considering how exhausted he was, I doubt he would have gotten very far. Far too many police are out of control and it's time to change this. It's time to stop letting cops get away with murder. It's time to end the type of unions that support the police regardless of how inappropriate and criminal they act.


Those police didn't even have to handcuff Brooks. He wasn't acting as if he was going to harm them. There is no law in Georgia that says that a suspect for DUI should be hand cuffed. I looked and couldn't even find a law that demands that a DUI suspect must be arrested and taken to police headquarters. If there is, it need to be overturned. The man wasn't even driving when they arrested him. He was asleep in his car. Why didn't the police just ask him if he was okay and then told him to pull over to a parking spot. He asked if he could simply walk home. His sobriety test was barely above the legal level. He may have been exhausted from working a long shift. The police who shot him totally over reacted to the situation and he should be prosecuted for what he did. His life wasn't in danger. Brooks was no threat to the community. What happened was outrageous, and we've seen this story before. It has to stop.

Yes. I'm angry about what the police in my country are doing. From the looks of it, we are becoming a police state.

 

[Derec]

I don't think it was justified by any reasonable standard.

I think it was justified under Tennessee v. Garner.

Doesn't matter what colour anybody's skin is.

We agree there!

And I can think of a few other cases in the past where the killing of a white person caused public concern and media coverage, so I don't think it's quite true, as some have suggested, that it has to be a black victim.

I have never seen an angry mob blockade an interstate and burn down a Wendy's over the police killing of a white person.

I have also never seen CNN, NYT and other mainstream media outlets ignore an extensive criminal record of any white person killed by police.

I also agree with you about the media coverage regarding the victim in this and other cases. It tends to be a bit too hagiographical. For example, if it's the case (and I'm only going by what I've read here) that Brooks was on parole, that getting arrested would violate that and have adverse consequences for him, then on the face of it, that could explain very well why, after initially complying, he suddenly resisted and ran. As such, it is potentially a key part of explaining what happened and should be mentioned in any thorough or balanced report.

Exactly. It is the duty of the media to give us the full picture, not pick and choose the facts to fit their agenda.