Atlanta Police Chief resigns after Black Man shot

a reply to: Grimpachi
What rights did this officer violate?
Was it the deceased's right to drive while intoxicated?
His right to resist arrest?
His right to assault police officers?
Perhaps it was his right to steal?
Or maybe his right to flee?
Maybe it was his right to assault another person feloniously?
It has to be one of those , right?
Because if you tell me his right to life, I will tell you that that right ended the minute he put another person's life and safety in jeopardy
That's where his rights ended
The minute they infringed on another person's right to life and to be secure in their person

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Granby

I don't "want" anything, other than a lack of crime. If evidence comes out that shows the cop was in the wrong, I'll support him being fired... hell, I'll support him being charged! Just like I did with George Floyd's murder.

What I have seen so far indicates it was a justified shooting.

If anyone "wants" a specific outcome, it would appear to be you. You seem desperate to ignore the facts that the video shows... specifically that the suspect had the cop's taser, turned and fired it at the cop, and all in the process of eluding the police. You also ignore the potential ability of the suspect to use the effects of that taser to gain unrestricted access to a gun.

Let me ask you, what was the second cop supposed to do? Would you feel better if he had shot the suspect instead of the first cop?

TheRedneck

He probably thinks the first cop should've went one on one with the suspect, and the 2nd cop could just stand back and be ready. If the suspect ever got to a point where he was about to kill cop 1, cop 2 would fire a pinpoint accurate shot over cop 1's shoulder, nailing the suspect right between the eyes, just like in the movies!

a reply to: Granby

I assume he’s referring to the same DA that issued aggravated assault warrants for several cops over them tasing two people during the protests.

What’s aggravated assault in Georgia? So glad you asked.

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults: (1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob; (2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or (3) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.

Seems that DA considered them deadly weapons a few days ago, but now you’re claiming he says they’re not? Might want to rethink accepting his word as gospel.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Anarchist eh? Works better in low population densities than in high ones I'd think.

LOL ... it's funny how similar some folks are, when Kennesaw GA passed a city ordinance in ... like 1978 or 79 that each head of household was required to maintain a firearm for home defense, I wrote a little paper in middle school (I lived in nearby Smyrna GA) arguing that everyone in the US should be required by law to carry a side arm. My main argument was that if everyone was armed all the time, people would have to learn to be polite to each other again. I also argued that we would have to place a moratorium on murder charges for some time so that things could "even out."

Strange eh? Two supposed "lefties" believe that everyone should be required to carry a weapon. Thanks for your thoughtfulu response.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The "OR" after "deadly weapon" in that statute is very important. It doesn't have to be a deadly weapon to get you an agg assault charge.

I'm sure you'll just tell me I'm splitting hairs though, like very exact language doesn't matter in legal proceedings.

a reply to: CryHavoc

If he had conducted himself differently, he would still be alive. I wonder, if he had tasered the officer, then got his gun and shot him dead, would that have made the national news?

ATLANTA — Neighbors volunteered their time Sunday morning to pay their respects to Rayshard Brooks and clean up following protests this weekend.

Brooks was shot and killed Friday night during a confrontation with two Atlanta police officers at a local Wendy’s.

Protests were held all day Saturday, although the night took a violent turn when some people set the restaurant on fire.

Atlanta police and public works trucks blocked University Avenue Sunday morning as cleanup began.

Channel 2′s Tony Thomas watched as members of the Atlanta City Council and neighbors stopped by.

“You can still smell the smoke. I see hurt, I see anger, I see frustration,” said Will Norwood. “I see people who are trying to find a way to express that things have to change.”

Marina Grant and several other volunteers picked up the trash around the restaurant and in the street.

WS B-TV Atlanta

Just FYI.

a reply to: face23785

I'm sure you'll just tell me I'm splitting hairs though, like very exact language doesn't matter in legal proceedings.

And yet you claim I’m the one that was upset about that discussion? Jesus dude, give it a rest. And yes, you are splitting hairs. Just not the right one.

The cops weren’t trying to murder, rob or rape anybody so that means (A)(1) is out. And the cops didn’t shoot a firearm from a moving vehicle, so that means (a)(3) is out. So yes, you’re entirely correct, the “or” denotes another way in which one can commit aggravated assault. Correct and entirely irrelevant.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bloodworth

That mentality would give the idea if you struggle and get away, you wont be chased.

Yep, and the logical conclusion to all of that would be more struggles with cops leading to more bad interactions where you don't get away but instead get shot.

Right. because if it was a gun in that cops hand instead of a taser.
Or during a struggle a firearm was taken.

This is where intelligence takes over

There's a lot of information from the body cams here: New York Times

Very clear video in most cases. Doesn't leave much to the imagination. CAUTION: includes footage of the shooting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is, but then he chose to fight the cops. That sort of sets him up for a bad outcome.

Yeah.

Perhaps he should have put himself on the ground and waited for a knee to the throat.

so you don't think fighting with a cop and stealing his weapon was a bad enough move to warrant being shot? I'm being honest here. That is what I have always learned was horribly wrong and will more likely than not end with being shot by at least one officer. But then, I was brought up by good parents.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: face23785

I'm sure you'll just tell me I'm splitting hairs though, like very exact language doesn't matter in legal proceedings.

And yet you claim I’m the one that was upset about that discussion? Jesus dude, give it a rest. And yes, you are splitting hairs. Just not the right one.

The cops weren’t trying to murder, rob or rape anybody so that means (A)(1) is out. And the cops didn’t shoot a firearm from a moving vehicle, so that means (a)(3) is out. So yes, you’re entirely correct, the “or” denotes another way in which one can commit aggravated assault. Correct and entirely irrelevant.

Where did I claim you were upset? I recall saying you were misunderstanding me. Upset? Were you? You're the one bringing that up.

The at the end of my post was meant to indicate I was joking around with you. Relax.

ETA: It's possible I did use the word "upset" I just don't remember it. I didn't take that disagreement nearly as seriously as you seem to wish I did.

ETAA: And it's actually not irrelevant in the context of the post you were responding to. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to explain how though. If you don't get it, you're not gonna get it after I explain either.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yup, Anarchist. I doubt I need to clarify, but absolutely not what everyone runs around calling anarchy nowadays.

I actually believe its only really possible through technology, wherein each individual or household contains the entire means for self-sufficiency from food to power to manufacturing.

How each "node" relates, interacts, and communicates is largely up to them. In my own take, it would essentially be a Constitutionally-based system. I look at it as the Constitutional Republic of the founders, adapted to fully leverage the strengths of modern technology.

Culturally, I believe that if/when society is truly ready for such levels of personal responsibility as an actual full blown way of life.. A colloquial shift would take place moving away from equating "Anarchy" with "chaos." Until then, we are perhaps projecting that we are simply not ready.

I think one of the biggest issues we are facing is that many of these changes people want are only truly possible long term. It took years to get where we are at now, and to truly reform anything beneficially we really need a lot of open debate, critical thinking, and long term planning.

Thats.. not what is happening.

And, given my deeply held concerns about forces at play that are guiding all of this towards their own vision, it creates a very, very difficult situation.

It has become far too easy to just dismiss any form of disagreement as [insert pejorative here], and I think we are mimicking the corporate-political monolith.

Like many things, it seems that the topic of "police reform" has been guided towards a path that will benefit the exact same individuals, organizations, and corporations as nearly every "cause," crisis, and event in existence.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There's a lot of information from the body cams here: New York Times

Very clear video in most cases. Doesn't leave much to the imagination. CAUTION: includes footage of the shooting.

I'm not a NY Times subscriber so I can't see that.

This does explain a lot about why you think the way you do though, so thanks for the input regardless.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not sure whether you've read through the discussion, but I've said several times that it's DUMB to argue with a cop, much less throw punches and take one's taser.

I'm not sure if you intended to suggest that Mr. Brook's actions mean he wasn't raised by good parents, but if so, I'd say you're just full of stuff.

As far as I can tell from what I've seen so far, the fact of the matter was that Brooks turned while running away and fired the taser which apparently did not hit either of the officers. Subsequent to that (again, my imperfect understanding) Officer Rolfe put three rounds into the suspect's back.

... and the suspect died in the hospital after surgery. That in my mind puts a different light on the situation.

The article I linked above from NYT has a lot of good information.

I'm not an expert on these matters as some here are or seem to be. Rolfe was fired in less than 24 hrs. The DA says that charges are being considered.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There's a lot of information from the body cams here: New York Times

Very clear video in most cases. Doesn't leave much to the imagination. CAUTION: includes footage of the shooting.

I'm not a NY Times subscriber so I can't see that.

This does explain a lot about why you think the way you do though, so thanks for the input regardless.

I understood that everyone gets free articles each month. Maybe you've already used yours?

I'll look for another source. The NYT piece goes through the body cam footage and does a great job of presenting the facts.

Oh, and the snark only makes your arguments look weaker than they already do. No need for it. Gets you nothing.

ETA: Youtube link to the body cam footage. AGAIN WARNING CONTAINS FOOTAGE OF THE SHOOTING. Sorry you can't access NYT.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Technically, aggravated assault would not apply per that definition. A taser is a device which incapacitates; it is not designed to kill, although it can kill in some circumstances. It could be considered potentially "lethal" but I don't see how it could be classified as "likely to result in death or serious bodily injury."

The principle is simple: a taser delivers a current through two spiked barbs attached to wires that are shot into the victim's skin. The initial surge is on the order of 50kV for a few milliseconds, which ionizes the bodily fluids. The voltage then drops back down to a few thousand volts for the remainder of the tazing. In all cases, the current, which is the measure of how deadly the electric power can be, is limited to a few milliamps to prevent death from electrocution.

The problem with tazers is in their application. There have been two types of issues with tazer use:

• Continuous tazing while expecting the suspect to submit. This is a problem because the suspect is immobilized during the tazing and cannot answer a question, cannot stand or assume any other position voluntarily, and may be unable to mentally process information. The ionization from the initial surge causes the synaptic pathways in the nervous system to be disrupted, meaning that neural signals cannot get through. This effect is more pronounced in some people than others, but occurs in almost all cases and essentially renders the victim paralyzed and momentarily unable to think.
  
  At the same time, the ionization can cause synapses to "fire" unconsciously. This will cause muscles to contract in a random pattern based on the synaptic firing. This is why I mentioned earlier that a tazer fired into a person who is holding a firearm can cause the firearm to discharge; the finger can contract without any attempt to do so by the victim.
  
  Pain receptors can also be stimulated, causing intense pain.
  
  
• Different people have different body resistances to electricity. I, for example, have an unusually high skin resistance. I can (and have) grab 120 volts of household current and I am in no danger... a little pain, a lot of shock, but no danger. I can release whenever I want to (which is usually quite quickly). Some people can be electrocuted by 120 volts of household current; their resistance is so low that it can do the same thing a taser does and stimulate the muscles holding the conductors, causing the person to be unable to break free.
  
  The lower the body resistance, the more current can flow. In the case of a human body, a difference of a few milliamps is the difference between life and death.
  
  Different people can also be more susceptible to nervous system interruption as well. Someone with a pacemaker, for instance, usually needs a stronger signal to cause the heart to contract. Such a need means it takes less current and less ionization to interrupt that signal sufficient to stop the heart. Age has a lot to do with this as well. Tasers should never be used on the elderly, the very young, or anyone appearing "feeble" in any way. The current setting is there to incapacitate the normal human adult; it is excessive for others.

The very fact that the current in a taser is specifically limited to avoid death to the victim prevents it from being "likely to cause death or serious injury" unless one can prove that the user knew the victim was unable to withstand an average electric shock. That would not apply to the officer in this case.

The reason I say the shooting was justified was not because the taser is deadly or lethal or anything like that. It is that the taser is designed to incapacitate the victim, who in this case was obviously armed and would then be unable to defend their weapon.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You’re right, it wouldn’t. Which begs the question why the DA would issue warrants for the officers on that charge, then turn around and claim that in this instance, a taser isn’t as lethal as he says it was during the protests.

Unless he intends to prove that the officers tased the individuals at the protest with the intent to murder, rape or rob them. Or that the officers fired weapons from moving vehicles.

a reply to: face23785

Cool, thanks for letting me know.