It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atlanta Police Chief resigns after Black Man shot

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

you didn't fulfill that they are non lethal, which is what i was asking for, pay attention.

from Granby post,


if you want but tasers are non lethal in georgia


from my post,


if your gonna insist that, non lethal in georgia. i ask that you show some documentation that makes that determination


you can't spin that no matter how hard you try.
edit on 14-6-2020 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Wow. You know your post is right there and you try to duck what you just said. Here let me help.


originally posted by: hounddoghowlie

if your gonna insist that, non lethal in georgia. i ask that you show some documentation that makes that determination or that the Laws of Physics works differently in GA.



You made an absurd request, however, I gave you a factual answer in return. Then you attempted to be dishonest about your request.

APD considers the use of a taser to be a measure to reduce the likliehood of injury. You can argue by whatever means you wish, but that is as final a determination that we will have until further action by the legal system.

Brooks was running away from the officers when he was shot and killed. The fact is that the officer who killed Mr. Brooks has already been FIRED by APD.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
therefore he is pointing/using a less than lethal weapon, which can and sometime does kill people at cops and use of deadly force is more than acceptable.

I could never get behind 'less than lethal' ... the phrase itself is like nails on a chalkboard.

Cops need to be disarmed. Lock the guns up in the arms room.

Then ... when you see the cops with guns ... you know it's over ... time to give up ... or die.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I think there is a question being missed here: Isn’t the suspect running away with a police issued device even if it is only a taser? Isn’t police issued pepper spray considered illegal for the general public to own/use? Are not many other police issued items the same way?

Drunken subject just tussled with the police and now as a taser...I’d be worried that he is going to use it on someone.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Drunken subject just tussled with the police and now as a taser...I’d be worried that he is going to use it on someone.

Well ... at least the cop isn't.

-chuckle



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
I think there is a question being missed here: Isn’t the suspect running away with a police issued device even if it is only a taser? Isn’t police issued pepper spray considered illegal for the general public to own/use? Are not many other police issued items the same way?

Drunken subject just tussled with the police and now as a taser...I’d be worried that he is going to use it on someone.


Reports claim that the suspect turned in flight at a distance of 20-40 ft. and appeared to attempt use the taser which would have depleted the cartridge.

There is no report that extra cartridges were also acquired by the suspect.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Georgia DPS has called ECDs “less-lethal” since at least 2015. “Minimizing injury” isn’t what makes something non-lethal or less-lethal. Non-lethal means zero risk of death. Less-lethal means there’s risk, but not much when used correctly, but it’s still possible a person could be killed if used incorrectly and in some cases even when used correctly.

APD’s policy isn’t loading any more, and since you didn’t quote the actual part that says they classify it as non-lethal, we can’t see that for ourself.

Georgia DPS



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I didn't state that APD refers to a taser as non-lethal. I did quote the standards that the officers in quesiton were working under.

You have expert knowledge. At a distance of 20-40 feet, in the hands of an intoxicated individual not trained in taser use, how lethal would you judge the threat to be were you in the situation.

I'm not asking for a judgement on whether the shoot was "good" or not.

ETA: Your citation is not from APD but from the State Department of Public Safety, aka, the State Troopers.
edit on 14-6-2020 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




You made an absurd request, however, I gave you a factual answer in return. Then you attempted to be dishonest about your request.


it was not absurd it was a legitimate demand for proof of his non lethal remark, which he has insisted tasers are non lethal in the whole thread. all you gave was laws for use. brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

but i gotta give you credit, you sure think you can spin anything to your view which is 100% wrong. a spin master you are not



APD considers the use of a taser to be a measure to reduce the likliehood of injury. You can argue by whatever means you wish, but that is as final a determination that we will have until further action by the legal system.


and if you watch the eye witness video, you see that a taser was deployed by the cop that he fired at. and he apparently thought he hit him.you can hear it as they run by the car window in that video. now did the barb penetrate all the way or even hit him, no way to know right now. then when they get near the red car you can see him the fire the taser he had and hit the the cop, you see the leads unfurl, you see the cop react and drop his taser, then move past the red car and start reaching for the barbs

so in this case what should they have tried to whoop his ass again for another 20 minutes like the first time when resisted and likely lose control of him again after he used a less than lethal weapon on them. let him run not knowing if he would be a threat to others while running from the cops, please.

edit on 14-6-2020 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 07:58 AM
link   
What would Dave Chappelle say to the Cops here?

Maybe ignore that the drunk perp is shooting at you with your own taser weapon? Split second decision...

Let him leave his car right there and call a cab? It is a DUI, ahem.

The cops can't shoot in self defense? Their family can expect them to get killed.

I love you Dave but you don't get it. Resisting arrest is an issue for stupid people. White, black, red, yellow or green, stupid is not prejudiced. We have to understand when the Po Po has to be called out for someone doing certain things like a DUI, you can't resist or it gets worse. I met a retired Black Police chief who said he teaches people not to put his officers in a spot to have to make a split second decision.

Ignorant is teachable, but we can't fix stupid. Next time Dave brings this up we need to ask him if 99.99% of the time or greater that a cop kills a perp, it honestly is because people do stupid stuff and can we get that on the table in the discussion? He needs to sit in a room of Black Police Chiefs and Sheriffs and have that talk if he doesn't know this data tidbit. Wrong is wrong, no matter who was wronged.

edit on 14-6-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

My reading comprehension skills are more than adequate to this task. You asked for proof that the laws of physics are different in Georgia, then you tried to hide that fact. You were provided with the verbatim wording from the Atlanta Police Standard Procedure Manual which clearly states that CEW (taser) is to be used to MINIMIZE injury.

You can insist on anything you want, but as to what the officer on the ground was operating under, the CEW (taser) is clearly stated to reduce the likelihood of injury. While you can continue to pretend that your argument is valid, all you have is a semantic argument.

Your recitation of what you see on the video is fine. I'm not addressing what you see.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


My reading comprehension skills are more than adequate to this task.



if that is the case, then your post about it being non lethal is disingenuous at best, or just a straight up lie. no way you can confuse my demand for proof of the weapon being classed as less than lethal, vs non lethal, and post laws that that govern their use.
spin spin spin nothing you posted addressed what i asked for or said.



You asked for proof that the laws of physics are different in Georgia, then you tried to hide that fact


so you can't comprehend or your just cherry picking parts of my post and being disingenuous.




if your gonna insist that, non lethal in georgia. i ask that you show some documentation that makes that determination or that the Laws of Physics works differently in GA.


first part, notice
non lethal in georgia.i ask that you show some documentation that makes that determination.
i was wanting documentation that the weapon is classed as non lethal.
then notice,
or that the Laws of Physics works differently in GA.
in other words what makes them work different GA than the rest of the world.

again all you gave was law governing the use of less than lethal weapon.

spin spin spin






edit on 14-6-2020 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Granby


you do not deserve to die for that
you do not deserve to die for resisting arrest
you do not deserve to die for sleeping it off in a parking lot

There are a lot of things that people do not deserve to die for. Doesn't matter.

Does someone deserve to die for breaking into a house in the middle of the night? Think about it; you're asleep and some robber decides to pick the lock and come in to get your belongings. He does not deserve to die for that; burglary is not a capital offense. But if he does it in my house, I promise you, if there is any way I can accomplish it, he will die for it.

And I will not want to to kill him. I do not want to kill anyone. It's not a question of that.

It is a question of me having a right and a duty to protect myself and my family. If someone is willing to break into my house at night, while he obviously thinks people are sleeping, he obviously has no qualms about breaking the law. I have no way to know what laws he has no qualms about breaking. Therefore I will do what is necessary to protect myself and my family, and that means I ensure that the threat to our safety is removed from existence.

You can later claim that I was in no danger; I didn't know that. You can claim that I could have stayed in bed and he would have just taken what he wanted and left. I didn't know that. You could have claimed he wasn't armed. I didn't know that. All of those claims would have been irrelevant. No one but the now dead guy knows what he was thinking. He did have access to firearms... mine.

The suspect passed out in a car in the drive-through. He was blocking everyone else. He was not "sleeping it off" in a parking space somewhere. The police were called because that is illegal and their job is to enforce the law. No one here knows what transpired after that, but somehow he was out of the car and scuffling with the cops on the pavement. At some point he managed to grab a taser from one cop and tried to run away.

Had he not grabbed the taser, you might have a point since he was unarmed. Shooting a suspect in the back while he is running away is not a good idea. Likely better to chase him while calling for backup.

Then he turns and at least tries to fire the taser (and it appears he actually did fire the taser) at the cops. A taser is designed to incapacitate an opponent. Had he hit the cop, the cop would have been incapacitated. The cop has a gun. The suspect would have had access to the gun, and had already indicated he had no problem firing a weapon at a cop. There is no reason to believe that he would have just kept on running instead of stopping, walking back to the cop, and using the gun on him.

Once he turned, it's over. That is intent to injure. The cop is now faced with a choice: risk the safety of his own life, the life of his partner (who could have been down from the scuffle as far as he knew), and the lives of everyone else in the vicinity, or stop the suspect right there. There was no other choice. So the cop shot him... not for having his taser, not for resisting arrest, and not for sleeping in a parking lot. He shot the guy for endangering the safety of everyone in that vicinity.

That is a cop's job: protect and serve.

We live in a world where everyone is on edge over an actual murder committed by a cop in broad daylight. In that case there was no obvious danger to the public, to the officers, or to anyone. In that case the suspect was under control and unarmed, unable to become armed. And yet, here you are, along with a few others, desperately trying to shift public anger away from that murderer by showing people just how unreasonable you can be when you argue against cops in general.

I've spend most of my adult life trying desperately to get people to understand that police brutality exists. I've been on the receiving end of that brutality. I have known people who died at the hands of the cops. I have known many more who were beat up but survived. Finally, a chance to get people to see what I have seen! But nooo... you can't have that! You have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with asinine ideas of some warped reality that does not exist.

Spare me.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You stated Tasers “have always been referred to as non lethal.” They aren’t, and they haven’t been.

Cops don’t shoot people for taking their tasers because of the lethality risk. They shoot people because tasers are designed to incapacitate a person. A cop doesn’t know if you’re trying to hit him with his own taser so you can run away or so you can grab his gun and dome him. I’m not sure where the 40 feet is coming from, honestly, because the taser first comes up in less than two parking spaces distance. That’s less than 20 feet, I’d wager. What’s the lethality risk in that situation? Low, like it is in any other taser usage.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Gryphon66


My reading comprehension skills are more than adequate to this task.



if that is the case, then your post about it being non lethal is disingenuous at best, or just a straight up lie. no way you can confuse my demand for proof of the weapon being classed as less than lethal, vs non lethal, and post laws that that govern their use.
spin spin spin nothing you posted addressed what i asked for or said.



I'm not sure I've staked a claim that a taser is "non-lethal" aside from the anecdotal mention that has always been my understanding as a resident of the area, while acknowledging that there is some small chance (heart conditions, etc.) that it could result in death. Given the fact that you tried to be deceitful by posting only a snippet of your actual quote regarding the laws of physics in Georgia, given that you're resorting to infantile ad hominem arguments, and given the fact that obviously you are only interested in trying to quibble over words ... I think I'm done.

Your argument, such as it is, rises and falls on whether or not the officer that shot Mr. Brooks felt his life was in danger. Given the fact that the officer has already been fired in less than 24 hours after the action ... I think it's a moot point until he's charged with something or he appeals his dismissal.

Have a great day, Howlie.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

You stated Tasers “have always been referred to as non lethal.” They aren’t, and they haven’t been.

Cops don’t shoot people for taking their tasers because of the lethality risk. They shoot people because tasers are designed to incapacitate a person. A cop doesn’t know if you’re trying to hit him with his own taser so you can run away or so you can grab his gun and dome him. I’m not sure where the 40 feet is coming from, honestly, because the taser first comes up in less than two parking spaces distance. That’s less than 20 feet, I’d wager. What’s the lethality risk in that situation? Low, like it is in any other taser usage.


You're going to argue semantics as well? Disappointing. Allow me to clarify what should have been obvious, in my experience, tasers have been referred to as non-lethal, while I have heard that there are situations in which they can be lethal.

Thank you for stating that the taser use in the situation had a low chance of being a lethal attack. I appreciate your honesty and expertise. For the record, I think Brooks was dumb to resist arrest, dumber to take the taser, and dumbest when he tried to use it against the officers. That's' only my lay-person's opinion though.
edit on 14-6-2020 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:31 AM
link   
leadership like this just teaches people that their violence is justified and acceptable, setting a precedence for future behavior over anything they don't like, just letting mob violence rule over rational enlightened thinking. there's no way to affect positive change in an environment of fear like that, it'll only create the same problems all over again.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am, yes, because HDH asked for proof that tasers are called non lethal in Georgia, and you waded in with “opinion and as a matter of fact.” You provided a link that shows nothing of the sort that HDH asked for and continue to argue about the minimization of risk of injury. It’s law, and it’s policy. Semantics are important. If we’re going to argue law and policy, semantics are central to any discussion.

I agree entirely with your position, though. You take an officer’s tools or weapons from him and attempt to use them, bad things are going to happen. Could these two guys have done something differently? Sure, you can almost always do something differently in hindsight. Should the chief have run away from it by resigning? Should the department be hanging the officers out to dry?

Absolutely not.



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: namehere
leadership like this just teaches people that their violence is justified and acceptable, setting a precedence for future behavior over anything they don't like, just letting mob violence rule over rational enlightened thinking. there's no way to affect positive change in an environment of fear like that, it'll only create the same problems all over again.


How exactly does mob violence play into this situation with the shooting of Mr. Brooks?

Are you referring to the protests that happened as a result of the shooting?



posted on Jun, 14 2020 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

The user I responded to presented an absurdist argument implying that if tasers are considered non-lethal then physics is different in Georgia. As to "weighing in" you're "weighing in" on a discussion as well. It's what we do here.

I provided the SOP manual from the Atlanta Police Department. If you're trying to claim that has no effect on the situation here, I can't help you - that's irrational. Semantics is not important in terms of the matter of the shooting, which is what we are discussing. The levels of distinction between "non-lethal" and "less-lethal" are purely a matter of this discussion.

The matter of how justly the officer acted will be judged by the Atlanta Police Department's Standard Operating Proccedures that I provided and the laws of the State of Georgia.

It certainly won't hinge on the semantic differences under discussion here.

I don't disagree with your overall opinion on the resignation of the Chief. I do think that there must be some justification for the shooting officer's rapid dismissal (the other officer is on administrative duty) that the public hasn't been made aware of, unless the civilian authority made the decision to fire him soley to attempt to minimize the community reaction.

I don't know on that point. Suspension pending the GBI investigation would seem sufficient given what we saw. Maybe there's something else.




top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join