Shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta

I have to admit . That's pretty funny. Good one.

By the way, How many nukes does each officer carry on their utility belt? Google wasnt much help, it didnt seem to understand the question.

 

Yet apparently a great deal of tolerance for those who commit unjustified, unprovoked physical assault at the drop of a hat.

 

So now you want to change the topic.

Smart move, sort of..

 

It is the basis of this entire topic. A violent career felon with a long string of convictions, including domestic violence and abuse of a child, being defended on the basis of his skin color alone.

 

As far as I am concerned, the topic is whether the shooting was justified, and it's quite clear it was not.

But keep bloviating.

 

The two cases of white people being attacked could just as easily have
been elderly black people. Indeed, 97% of all black people murdered in
the USA are murdered by other black people. This isn't racism, it's crime.

 

Why do you think the shooting in Atlanta was precipitate by race?

 

I guess we saw different footage.

 

You say so.

 

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

I asked YOU why do YOU think the shooting in Atlanta was precipitate by race?
Only YOU can answer this.

 

No, I don't say so. Your own government statistics say so.
Most immigrant groups are fearful of African Americans due
to the high crime rate.

 

There a clear threat to life and the patdown could not have guaranteed he didn't have a weapon, he could have it stuffed down his crotch etc or taken the gun off the other officer. And he missed with his shot, I mean what, you're prosecuting the guy because he does hit with every round? My GOD!
Afterwards they were shock, who wouldn't be, a minor DUI arrest had just turned into a deadly force encounter.

 

It was self defence. The thug shot at the officer. The thug could have stopped running and shot again. There's no guarantee that he would have continued running, not least because he was drunk. He also could have fallen on his ass, played 'dead' (or unconscious) then shot once the officers closed in on him.

 

You think that the officer would have shot him if Brooks had not fired the taser? Also. I think that only two shot tasers exist, not four.

 

Does the fact that it was a police weapon make him more of a significant threat to the community?

 

I agree. At the time, I hadn't seen him fire a taser at the officer.

 

According to Officer.com, a taser used by police can be in fact shot 3 times before having to be reloaded. After the 3 shots, the taser can still be used as a contact weapon. This makes the taser that Brooks shot a continuing weapon. The rules of engagement allows the police to shoot a suspect if he poses a threat to the officers and the general public. That threat can not have to be a lethal threat. It can also be a threat of serious injury. Since the taser could in fact be used numerous times it did pose a threat. If Brooks had gotten away, he could use the taser to carjack someone, or even to rob them. Brook could use the weapon to disable them which could which posed a serious risk of harming them. For that reason, the officer could legally shot Brooks.

https://www.officer.com/home/articl...14,200,or has more than one suspect to subdue.

As far as whether the officer would have shot Brooks just for stealing his taser even if he had not fired it at the officer. What the fake new media does not state is the no officer would want to take on the responsibility of shooting a suspect, or even firing his weapon. The paperwork alone would be massive. Then there is the IA, and DA, investigations. That even gets worse if that the shooting violated the Police's rules of engagement. We also have to remember that Brooks was a criminal that pleaded guilty of credit card theft. He was paroled because of COVID-19. He was trying to avoid being arrested for DUI which he was obviously guilty of. He clearly would do anything to get away including jacking a car.

 

I can't speak for others, but I have said that the officer was guilty of allowing Brooks steal his weapon and shooting a car that was passing by. BTW, the officer did not shoot an innocent bystander. He shot a passing car, but no one was injured in the car. Allowing Brooks to steal his weapon violated is grounds for him to be fired, but only after the required police department termination hearing. For shooting a round that hit a passing vehicle, he is guilty of reckless endangerment. A conviction does not allow the death penalty. If the DA continues to push a murder charge, then your going to see another Zimmerman situation.

 

How does one allow themselves to have their weapon stolen, when they have been assaulted and knocked to the ground?

 

Two officers should not have been knocked to the ground by any suspect. Further, police department rules calls for officers to be fired for letting their weapon be stolen by a suspect.

 

Then law enforcement should have deployed lethal force against the individual in question the moment he began to resist?

 

You realise that this isn't every single taser don't you?

 

If you bothered to read the link, you would see that the taser that I showed you has been used by the police since 2003. If you watch the video, you would see that the taser that Brooks fired at the officer is that type of taser.