Shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta

The first I heard of the Rayshard Brooks shooting in Atalanta was testimony given by his lawyers on the News.
https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/rayshard-brooks-family-video/
The demeanor of those attorneys was very calm and sincere (unlike the rantings of an Al Sharpton) I was impressed as well as incensed at the senseless killing these men portrayed.
It just seems wrong that these attorneys, however, get the opportunity to present their case, leaving out exculpatory facts, in the media before any real investigation has taken place.

Then I saw the film. There WAS, from what I have heard, a sobriety test given. There WAS a discussion between the victim and officers. These facts were denied by the lawyers. There WAS a violent struggle on the ground where a taser was grabbed by the victim. He did overtake the two officers, which I found remarkable then turned and ran as if to flee as stated by the lawyers. The attorney stated they should have just let him go. They had his I.D. and his car. That made sense to me....but they left out an important fact. Raychard turned and pointed the taser at the officers. The one officer beat him to the draw and shot him.

To me this evidence seems perfectly appropriate. Raychard made some bad mistakes, all that cost him his life. This story is an example as to how media exacerbate a situation before facts are known. Of course it plays to their proven narrative. A Wendy's is burnt to the ground, a policeman doing his duty is fired. I don't care about the police chief.....she had the courage of a sparrow.in leaving. Anyway, I present this case for discussion!

 

Ask yourself; has there ever been any situation with any possible racial cast to it, in the last 20 years, in which mainstream journalism has actually urged calm and carried out a dispassionate examination of the facts before leveling the most incendiary charges? Has there ever been an interracial altercation in which the media did not deliberately seek to exacerbate racial and ethnic tensions and pit Americans against each other? The answer is no.

From the editing of George Zimmerman’s call with the police in the Trayvon case to the false “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” narrative in Ferguson, Missouri, to treating as legitimate Stacey Abrams’ claims of losing her election to “disenfranchisement”, the media takes every opportunity to drive a wedge between the races.

I used to wince whenever I heard Trump call the media the “enemy of the people.” Now, I believe he undersold the situation.

 

Obviously we should just give blacks even more protected status......they should just be left alone so they can drive totally wasted and kill someone while behind the wheel. How about just no laws for blacks whatsoever? I'm sure there's a country in Africa that can suit their needs.

 

I just came to the same conclusion in another thread about this.

 

Well that's understandable. It's not like we don't have a 100 threads about how all whites are racist/the problem is always whites....and blacks deserve a free pass because they are direct descendants of slaves. Nobody wants to talk about who started legal slavery...Anthony Johnson, a black man. A lot of blacks descended not as slaves but from slave owners or sellers, yet whitey is always the target. Hell, a lot of blacks don't even know who their daddy is so how in the hell do they know they descended from slaves?

 

A European or African sparrow?

 

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what would possibly make a drunk decide to sleep it off in the drive-thru lane anyway? All he had to do was pull it over to the far corner and you can stay there all week

 

Probably alcohol.

 

Heaven forbid if it was an English Sparrow..... that definitely would be racist!

 

The real point is....when will non-racist blacks and whites come together and unite against the enemy that perpetuates this stuff??!! I see it starting to happen. All they have left is bluster and several thousand minions that flock to the protests instead of doing their best to build America! When will Corporations and Soros stop funding this effort to divide? They have to pay protestors now.

 

In the videos, we see:

- Resisting arrest
- Assault on a police officer (taser)
- 2nd assault on a police officer (taser)
- Fleeing felon in possession of a police weapon (taser).

Looks like a good shoot.
If the police officers were black and/or the deceased a white, this would not have made the news.

 

I understand at this point and agree with your assessment. I do not believe the officer is guilty of homicide, but at this point I would question whether or not he made a wrong decision as to pursuit of this individual. Would it have been wiser to let him go? The dead man had not endangered anyone but the police officers (and he did kick their a*&) but they had him dead to rights. They had his ID and his car. Let the situation defuse then pick him up later for public intoxication and assaulting a police officer while resisting arrest. That would have been good enough!

 

He assaulted 2 police officers. He had a police weapon.
Thus, he was an immediate threat to the community.
It would have been irresponsible to let him go.

 

There's got to be a better way to apply handcuffs. You see to many bolt exactly at that point, and then something bad happens. Too bad. Something else is needed to get the cuffs on, I think, because they put one hand behind their back and "click!" the pressure of restraint is strong, and then goes behind the other hand, and -- snap!! GET ME OUT OF HERE!

Then it often doesn't end well.

 

Handcuffs are reminiscent of the shackles worn by slaves, and thus, their use is racist.

 

All this destruction and loss of life could have been avoided. It would have been very easy to pick him up at his home. They had his car. Do you honestly think that the man asleep and drunk in his car was going to then assault the public with a taser now? How was he a threat to the community? Was the alternative results a greater threat? Shots being fired? A Wendy's set afire? Accusation of racism? All I'm saying there was a much safer alternative to shooting the man in the back (though because he fired at police with a taser, it was duly warranted). Perhaps a trainingg film should be made of this event and new assessments be made as to actions taken. Those two cops could have held their ground (after having their a&*es kicked) with pistols drawn, sucked up their pride, and dispatched officers to his home.
I do not believe this officer should have been fired. I see that as appeasement before a hearing. All I am saying is, there might have been a safer, wiser way of handling the situation.

 

Zip ties quicker and more efficient?

 

He was an immediate threat to the community.
It would have been irresponsible to let him go.

 

I do not believe this officer should have been fired. I see that as appeasement before a hearing. All I am saying is, there might have been a safer, wiser way of handling the situation. Results might very well have been better!

 

Only one thing that I need to correct here. Mr. Brooks did in fact turn take a taser from the officer, and turned to fire it at him. Some left-wingers have tried to claim that the weapon was no longer dangerous after it had been fired. This is not true. One former police officer, interviewed by Fox News, stated that if the weapon had been fired, it could only be used as a direct contact weapon. The ones that I have seen and used have four chambers, and can be fired four times. But even if this officer had been correct, there was nothing stopping Brooks from taking the weapon and using it to jack another car. Therefore, Brooks still posed a credible threat, and deadly force was justified.

 

Unquestionably.
Fleeing felon.

 

The Officer that fired the shots was fired without due process. The GBI is currently investigating, and as I have said on another thread, they did not play political games. There will probably a Grand Jury appearance, and then a ruling of justifiable. When that happens that terminated officer will be getting his job back, or be paid off. He should then sue the Mayor of Atlanta for Slander.

 

I haven't heard - what does the Atlanta police union have to say?

 

That's good information. I guess I am not condemning the officers actions in anyway. I am just questioning. Is it reasonable to think this guy was dangerous to the public? That a pursuit was necessary? Given a chance for his adrenaline to calm down and the officers to get over their a&* whoopin', maybe he would just go home to sleep it off. That seems most likely.
Officers, I would assume, often with hold fire in a crowd for public safety. I just wonder if the same course of action could be applied here. Just for future training.