Rayshard Brooks Killed By Police In Atlanta. Free TVs For Everyone..

[bush_cheney2004]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is no unanimity in any group or narrative. There are always exceptions. But using the existence of exceptions to try to disprove the reality of the general truth of a statement is dishonest....

 

No, what is dishonest is to try to present the majority black (or white) male experiences in such a framework, when the population of criminals is actually smaller and are the "exception".    In the U.S., black, white, and Hispanic males are arrested and convicted at varying rates through age 30, but not for the majority of their respective populations.   

Police officers use this bias to inform their profiling and to reinforce experiences and fears during stops, detentions, and arrests.

Edited June 16, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[Infidel Dog]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's time to stop using the word progressive and replace it with radical. 

Theres nothing "progressive" about CNN, Antifa, BLM, AOC & the Squawks, Schiff, Biden, Pelosi, M Waters, CTV, CBC, Global, etc. They're just radicals now.

I didn't see CBC or Global's bullshit take on this, but they literally described that shooting as "Police shot him in the back while he was running away." That's not News, that's bullshit. At the time they said it, the videos were out and the facts were known. 

CTV wasn't fair and impartial, they weren't just biased, they weren't just leftist, they weren't progressive, they were actually inciting radicals to loot, riot, commit arson and kill more cops. Maybe they're just total fucking idiots who shouldn't be allowed to stand in front of a camera and lead people astray, but I think it's impossible for anyone to be that stupid. 

I get your point, and it seems accurate, but I'm not sure radical will do it. They'll just whistle and walk past it like "you can't be talking about me."

I don't mind what classic Liberals like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Dave Rubin call them - 'The regressive left.'

I personally like 'prog.' It's just a diminutive of progressive, of course, but used with judgement in the right spot it has power. First you have to get them used to being outed under the "progressive" label though. 

[Infidel Dog]

There are spots where Progressive Socialist or Progcom work. I've heard "progtard" but that's kind of cheap.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Nope. There's a video. He was shot when he turned to fire a Taser at the police. 

Yes, shot twice in the back according  the coroner who did the autopsy but he's probably just a lying CTV/CNN stooge too.

Fucking Deepstate is everywhere you go man.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

I don't mind what classic Liberals like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Dave Rubin call them - 'The regressive left.'

I doubt that he was referring to Biden.  That's just alt-right revisionism.

[OftenWrong]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's why Rayshard is dead.

In the end it is, and that's exactly why he needed to be shot. But before that was an opportunity to avoid that level of conflict altogether. That is where the focus has to be, moving forward. Officers need the right to shoot to kill to defend themselves, without a doubt. What could be improved on is some more emphasis on de-escalation and defence, in the moments leading up to his arrest.

Why arrest at all. He could have been let go, brought home by the cops and his vehicle impounded. Prisons are full, court cases totally backlogged by lawyers and bullshit, and they need to bring this man in. He was fully cooperative. Maybe other things could be done. Warning, ticket, vehicle impounded. Bring him home and see what's going on there, etc. The new police should first and foremost seek ways to de-escalate and avoid the need for detainment. The hotel is full, can't rent out any more rooms. But I suspect this cop felt a little too empowered at the moment he decided to arrest. So, disempower the police maybe.

Edited June 16, 2020 by OftenWrong

[Boges]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Police officers use this bias to inform their profiling and to reinforce experiences and fears during stops, detentions, and arrests.

And a better indication of the chances of violence are the person's socio-economic level and not their race. 

 

[Rue]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

In the end it is, and that's exactly why he needed to be shot. But before that was an opportunity to avoid that level of conflict altogether. That is where the focus has to be, moving forward. Officers need the right to shoot to kill to defend themselves, without a doubt. What could be improved on is some more emphasis on de-escalation and defence, in the moments leading up to his arrest.

Why arrest at all. He could have been let go, brought home by the cops and his vehicle impounded. Prisons are full, court cases totally backlogged by lawyers and bullshit, and they need to bring this man in. He was fully cooperative. Maybe other things could be done. Warning, ticket, vehicle impounded. Bring him home and see what's going on there, etc. The new police should first and foremost seek ways to de-escalate and avoid the need for detainment. The hotel is full, can't rent out any more rooms. But I suspect this cop felt a little too empowered at the moment he decided to arrest. So, disempower the police maybe.

What you suggest is already being done.  The issue is also  the behaviour of the civilians. We seem to completely detach their behavior from the response it triggers and live at a time when we ignore the behaviour of the individual who gets into trouble that may have contributed to the reaction they triggered.  

This  shooting will be questioned. Whether the civilian had his back fully turned or not when  he was shot remains to be determined. 

This is not a Floyd case where the civilian was cuffed and subdued. There was a crime in progress. In the heat of that moment reflex behaviour from adrenaline kicks in. 

Without knowing more the choice to shoot may have been premature but the tape shown is not clear as to the angle of the civilian. I am not excusing the choice of force just saying it requires more analysis because  unlike Floyd this was not an immobilized cuffed man. 

The Floyd incident has everyone seeing Floyd in all police actions now. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, Boges said:

The only reason he could even have tazed a cop was because they were in hot pursuit. It's not like he was in a car, he wasn't a threat to anyone at that point. 

And it's their job to be in hot pursuit. You're acting like cops should just let people go the second they start to run. 

You can't seriously be trying to set that standard. It's completely idiotic.

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes, shot twice in the back according  the coroner who did the autopsy but he's probably just a lying CTV/CNN stooge too.

You still told another lie, didn't you eyeball?

He shot the taser, the cop shot him. Everyone on planet earth knows that. Just because other people lie about it doesn't make it ok for you to lie about it. Worry about your own foul mouth.

Do you honestly see yourself as "part of the solution" when you're just a serial liar and a propagandist? 

You tell serious lies about every single topic that comes up for debate here. You're just a liar, through and through. Yet you want to cozy up to the adult table and act like your garbage has a place here. It doesn't. There's no place at a serious discussion for a worthless liar like you. 

Quote

Fucking Deepstate is everywhere you go man.

You still can't find a lie by me anywhere on this site and I have 3,000 posts here, yet you still run your mouth like a fool.

Go spew your lies, your idiocy, and your whining about the 30-person genocide from 300 years ago to someone dumb enough to GAF what you think eyeball. 

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Why arrest at all.

Because there are laws, and what you're doing is a advocating for the suspension of the lawful duties of the police.

At some point they still have to arrest them OftenWrong, don't they?

If he attacked them and ran at the Wendy's what makes you think it will be safer to approach him in his own home, where he may have guns, a pitbull, and/or some drunk friends? 

Quote

The new police should first and foremost seek ways to de-escalate and avoid the need for detainment. The hotel is full, can't rent out any more rooms. But I suspect this cop felt a little too empowered at the moment he decided to arrest. So, disempower the police maybe.

OMG so you're already giving up on policing?

Don't join the idiot mob OW. 

There are 1M police in the US. They have hundreds of millions of interactions with society's absolute worst people who are at their very worst behaviour every year, and out of all of those interactions just a handful go to an extreme negative. Of those, you get one incident like George Floyd every few years and those cops get charged with murder. That's not a failure, it's actually a success.

Malcontents just want something to bitch about and wanna be SJWs and stupid people get sucked in.

Cops take endless abuse from people on the street, members of the government including our own PM, and an entire army of internet liars like the ones we have here. 

That's no crowd for decent people to get involved with. 

[OftenWrong]

55 minutes ago, Rue said:

What you suggest is already being done.  The issue is also  the behaviour of the civilians.

Agreed, what I suggest is nothing new. So, better training to follow the protocols. Yes, if any training is needed now it is for civilians. The "Hate the Cops" meme coming from the far left nutjobs is causing widespread harm, if kids grow up thinking it's fine to throw a punch at cops.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The "Hate the Cops" meme coming from the far left nutjobs is causing widespread harm, if kids grow up thinking it's fine to throw a punch at cops.

Agreed.  The ingredients are now in place for civil unrest.  I used to theoretically believe it was possible, but couldn't imagine the conditions where it would happen.  Now I know.

[OftenWrong]

31 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG so you're already giving up on policing?

Don't join the idiot mob OW.

I have been involved in a few incidents with police, and know what dicks they can be. I always cooperated fully, because I knew that.

In some cases, and I meant before the fight broke out, there's a judgement call to be made. The officer is expected to make that call. As I said in my post, and hate repeating myself, since the guy was cooperating fully, and what he did up to that point was relatively minor, he could be treated differently. What I propose is a bit softer model, Arresting the shit out of everyone is a complete waste of time for the courts. It's merely a bureaucratic process. If the first priority is harm reduction and not to arrest, some of these violent arrests might be avoided.

Does that mean I give up on policing? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. Quite the opposite, I want more funding and training and have said that as well.
Cheers...

Edited June 16, 2020 by OftenWrong

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed.  The ingredients are now in place for civil unrest.  I used to theoretically believe it was possible, but couldn't imagine the conditions where it would happen.  Now I know.

 

Civil unrest has always been possible, and a reality several different times in U.S. history.    It is not without precedent.

ABC television is rebroadcasting Let It Fall tonight, a 2017 documentary of the ten year lead into the 1992 Rodney King riots.

...this will add more gasoline to the fires.

 

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I have been involved in a few incidents with police, and know what dicks they can be. I always cooperated fully, because I knew that.

In some cases, and I meant before the fight broke out, there's a judgement call to be made. The officer is expected to make that call. As I said in my post, and hate repeating myself, since the guy was cooperating fully, and what he did up to that point was relatively minor, he could be treated differently. What I propose is a bit softer model, Arresting the shit out of everyone is a complete waste of time for the courts. It's merely a bureaucratic process. If the first priority is harm reduction and not to arrest, some of these violent arrests might be avoided.

 

In my opinion, relatively minor is when the police randomly pull you over at a checkstop and your BA is .071. You're coherent, you're two blocks from home and you have just driven two blocks. That's minor.

It's worse when the police have cause to check you because you're driving erratically or you're passed out at the wheel.

Rayshard was so wasted that even with a cop standing there watching him he accidentally drove his car over the curb onto the grass. IE, he drove a car when he was in a state where he could have easily killed somebody. In all honesty, Rayshard could easily have killed somebody that night. That's not minor at all. 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

Quote

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes — that's one person every 50 minutes. These deaths have fallen by a third in the last three decades; however, drunk-driving crashes claim more than 10,000 lives per year. In 2010, the most recent year for which cost data is available, these deaths and damages contributed to a cost of $44 billion that year.

That's just deaths. It doesn't include people who are paralyzed, people who have crushed pelvises and never walk properly again, etc. It also doesn't include the number of families grieving for a child or a brother or a mother. 

Are you kidding me that what he did was so minor that he should just be allowed to go? He committed an extremely serious crime and put lives at risk.

He also lied to the cops about where he was, how much he drank, etc. His story is that he just came from dinner with his girlfriend, she dropped him off at Wendy's where his car was, and he just got in line and passed out, and he only had one drink. What parts of that do you think are true? He was nice enough, but IMO that's not co-operating at all. 

Co-operating would be saying "I drank more than I meant to, I realized I was drunk, I pulled over to get some food and sleep in the parking lot. I'm sorry, I've never done this before." Still guilty, but at least remorseful, honest and co-operational. Still needs to go to jail though. 

In some States they take blood tests in jail. A proper conviction won't just rely on a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer. A blood test is much stronger evidence. Georgia:

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/forced-dui-breath-tests-would-remain-illegal-under-georgia-bill/kex1kuaCM4MZeHrspKo08O/

Quote

Drunken driving cases will remain harder to prove because of the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision. Police will need to bring suspects in for blood tests to find out their intoxication levels.

[That quote above is taken out of context, they're just saying that police couldn't insist that motorists take blood tests back at that date, or even tell them that refusing the breathalyzer could be used in court. I only posted it here to show that in Georgia, BA tests are done by the police.]

He was being taken into custody lawfully and for very good reason. He wasn't stopped based on racial-profiling he was already stopped, passed out drunk. The cops did nothing wrong at all, at any point. Too bad they had to shoot him, but he forced their hand. 

Quote

Does that mean I give up on policing? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. Quite the opposite, I want more funding and training and have said that as well.
Cheers...

In your post above you said "The new police should......".

Sounded like you were going along with the plan to defund all police and go with whatever the plan is. 

 

The absolute fact of the matter is that police WERE CALLED to come see him, specifically for being suspected of drunk driving, he gave them good reason to test him for drunkenness when they were there, he tested way over, he constantly lied to the police who were very polite and fair with him, be blew way over, they NEEDED to take him in to get a blood test to add strength to their charges against him, they weren't rough when they went to handcuff him, he attacked unprovoked, they didn't even want to use the taser on his LEG so they gave him FOUR WARNINGS and then he stole the taser from them, punched a cop, ran, and shot a taser at the police.

Sad that he's dead, but that's what that laundry list of extremely bad decisions can lead to. 

[Michael Hardner]

57 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. Civil unrest has always been possible, and a reality several different times in U.S. history.    It is not without precedent.

2. ABC television is rebroadcasting Let It Fall tonight, a 2017 documentary of the ten year lead into the 1992 Rodney King riots.

3. ...this will add more gasoline to the fires.

 

1-3. Yes, you are correct with regards to my unqualified statement.  What I am talking about is unrest on a significantly larger scale.  My imagination is still limited as to where it could go.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

He shot the taser, the cop shot him. Everyone on planet earth knows that.

Yes, in the back. Where is the lie you're talking about btw?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes, in the back. Where is the lie you're talking about btw?

Here's the gist of what you're arguing eyeball, that this is a legitimate statement:

Quote

CTV just said "He was running from the police and got shot in the back."

Only a complete idiot could look at all of the evidence and think that this was an accurate summary of the events.

It's more likely that someone who sums the events up in such a manner is being intentionally inflammatory.

That's why I said that CTV is complete filth. Your defence of their awful anti-journalism falls completely flat.

If I said that 

Quote

Rayshard shot at police, they returned fire, killing him.

Would that be accurate enough for you?

It's just as accurate as what CTV wrote, so by rights, you should consider that a fair summary if you're being honest.

[New World Disorder]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

And it's their job to be in hot pursuit. You're acting like cops should just let people go the second they start to run. 

You can't seriously be trying to set that standard. It's completely idiotic.

I'd be concerned about cops killing bystanders instead of the person they wanted to shoot.  Not a lot of marksmanship when running and shooting with a pistol.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's why I said that CTV is complete filth. Your defence of their awful anti-journalism falls completely flat.

If I said that

  Quote

Rayshard shot at police, they returned fire, killing him

Would that be accurate enough for you?

It's just as accurate as what CTV wrote, so by rights, you should consider that a fair summary if you're being honest.

Fair enough I suppose but why is it dishonest to say Brooks was shot in the back? Its what happened.

 

[Argus]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Fair enough I suppose but why is it dishonest to say Brooks was shot in the back? Its what happened.

 

Because it implies he was harmless as he ran away, not halfway turned around and firing a tazer at police.

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because it implies he was harmless as he ran away, not halfway turned around and firing a tazer at police.

You and buddy seem to be implying people need a story that doesn't offend your tender sensitivities or are too stupid to figure out themselves what happened based on the facts.  You're not implying the media should be biased towards cops are you?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Fair enough I suppose but why is it dishonest to say Brooks was shot in the back? Its what happened.

 

Because they're encapsulating the whole story in one quick sound byte at the beginning of the show, which sets the tone. 

The tone should always be set to "accuracy", never to "inflammatory". 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You and buddy seem to be implying people need a story that doesn't offend your tender sensitivities or are too stupid to figure out themselves what happened based on the facts.  You're not implying the media should be biased towards cops are you?

The media should tell the accurate and honest truth.That's it. They don't need to butter up the cops, or promote a lynch mob. They need to tell the ugly, plain, unvarnished truth.

The inflammatory story puts all eyes on the news, but it's harmful to the country. 

 

If you watch the video, you'll see that the cop warned Rayshard FOUR TIMES that he was going to taser him while they were wrestling, and the taser was just pointed at his leg. IMO they really didn't want to hurt that guy.

In the end, if the cop would have tasered Rayshard then and there, this would have ended up better for Rayshard, but it would have seemed a abusive imo.

The cop probably should have helped his partner restrain Rayshard instead of just holding a taser there and eventually doing nothing positive. That was kind of f'd up, the way it turned out. 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by WestCanMan