George Floyd Police killing and protests

[Wokko]

Read my post again. I repeated what the prosecutor stated as the factual basis for the charge.

You then offered commentary. I wasn't responding to the political prosecutor who is just pushing the agenda.

[Pies4shaw]

Your snipe depended on me mischaracterising the facts. I did not do so.

The cop was charged with murder because he shot an unarmed man who was running away from him twice in the back. Thus, I repeat, “Not much of a split second decision, was it?”

Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?

Of course, police find themselves in difficult, life-threatening situations from time to time. They kill people in those situations and don’t get charged - that’s the rule, rather than the exception. This bloke was charged with murder because, in the opinion of the prosecutor, what happened was so far beyond acceptable that it could not be excused. Plainly you want to imagine that’s a political position. In order to assess that possibility, why don’t you review all the police killings that didn’t result in murder charges - hundreds and hundreds every year, on the one hand, and this one and a couple of others (shooting a guy eating ice cream in his own house and shooting an Australian woman in her pyjamas come to mind) on the other.

[think positive]

Your snipe depended on me mischaracterising the facts. I did not do so.

The cop was charged with murder because he shot an unarmed man who was running away from him twice in the back. Thus, I repeat, “Not much of a split second decision, was it?”

Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?

Of course, police find themselves in difficult, life-threatening situations from time to time. They kill people in those situations and don’t get charged - that’s the rule, rather than the exception. This bloke was charged with murder because, in the opinion of the prosecutor, what happened was so far beyond acceptable that it could not be excused. Plainly you want to imagine that’s a political position. In order to assess that possibility, why don’t you review all the police killings that didn’t result in murder charges - hundreds and hundreds every year, on the one hand, and this one and a couple of others (shooting a guy eating ice cream in his own house and shooting an Australian woman in her pyjamas come to mind) on the other.

I don't believe that for a second. IMO the prosecutor felt he had to lay charges immediately, to avoid what happened when the charges in the Floyd case were delayed. He simply reacted. The charges haven't stuck yet.

the guy eating ice cream, the cop should get charged, not sure what with, the one with the Australian woman IMO was a scape goat for all the ones that should have been charged. lets not forget he was not white.

something has to change. but each case needs an independent look at it. I can easily google and find 5 where I believe at the very least manslaughter charges should be laid, but its also not helped by the fact that so many black men are killing other black men. The cops are jumpy, they are also under trained and underpaid. it would be an awful job, at any time, not just now, and if a lot are working 2 jobs to make ends meet, that is not helping the situation.

the answer to me is get rid of the guns. Criminals have far more powerful weapons than the cops do. And everyone knows the cops all carry a gun, the cops have no idea who is carrying. Give the police more standing in the community, rather than paying the likes of the cartrashians millions, pay the police properly, train them properly.

The Floyd case, 100% that should be a murder charge, and the other three should get charged with failure to assist the man.

The other case is not clear cut in my mind at all. He didn't have to drive drunk, then he might not have fallen asleep in the drive through. He didn't have to resist arrest, 2 cops could not hold him down, and he did not have to take the cops taser. These atre all decisions, split second decisions like the cops, where he could have made a better choice. you say the taser was useless, I say maybe, maybe not, not a chance id take. the footage I have seen to date ends when he takes off. where there other people around he could have injured or attacked?

the notion that cops go looking to kill is bullshit. you might get the odd rougue, but there are a lot more on the opposite side trying to kill them.

[Tannin]

Sure, absolutely, get rid of the guns. Meanwhile, Pies4shaw has asked the one really important question.

"Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?"

[watt price tully]

Sure, absolutely, get rid of the guns. Meanwhile, Pies4shaw has asked the one really important question.

"Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?"

Nail hit head: you took the words off my mobile

[Morrigu]

^ “ Surveillance video showed Brooks running through the parking lot with the officers behind him. At one point, Brooks turned and allegedly shot the stun gun at Rolfe, who drew his weapon and opened fire”

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/abcnews ... d=71318421

Sounds pretty acceptable split second to me.

[Pies4shaw]

Your snipe depended on me mischaracterising the facts. I did not do so.

The cop was charged with murder because he shot an unarmed man who was running away from him twice in the back. Thus, I repeat, “Not much of a split second decision, was it?”

Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?

Of course, police find themselves in difficult, life-threatening situations from time to time. They kill people in those situations and don’t get charged - that’s the rule, rather than the exception. This bloke was charged with murder because, in the opinion of the prosecutor, what happened was so far beyond acceptable that it could not be excused. Plainly you want to imagine that’s a political position. In order to assess that possibility, why don’t you review all the police killings that didn’t result in murder charges - hundreds and hundreds every year, on the one hand, and this one and a couple of others (shooting a guy eating ice cream in his own house and shooting an Australian woman in her pyjamas come to mind) on the other.

I don't believe that for a second. IMO the prosecutor felt he had to lay charges immediately, to avoid what happened when the charges in the Floyd case were delayed. He simply reacted. The charges haven't stuck yet.

the guy eating ice cream, the cop should get charged, not sure what with, the one with the Australian woman IMO was a scape goat for all the ones that should have been charged. lets not forget he was not white.

something has to change. but each case needs an independent look at it. I can easily google and find 5 where I believe at the very least manslaughter charges should be laid, but its also not helped by the fact that so many black men are killing other black men. The cops are jumpy, they are also under trained and underpaid. it would be an awful job, at any time, not just now, and if a lot are working 2 jobs to make ends meet, that is not helping the situation.

the answer to me is get rid of the guns. Criminals have far more powerful weapons than the cops do. And everyone knows the cops all carry a gun, the cops have no idea who is carrying. Give the police more standing in the community, rather than paying the likes of the cartrashians millions, pay the police properly, train them properly.

The Floyd case, 100% that should be a murder charge, and the other three should get charged with failure to assist the man.

The other case is not clear cut in my mind at all. He didn't have to drive drunk, then he might not have fallen asleep in the drive through. He didn't have to resist arrest, 2 cops could not hold him down, and he did not have to take the cops taser. These atre all decisions, split second decisions like the cops, where he could have made a better choice. you say the taser was useless, I say maybe, maybe not, not a chance id take. the footage I have seen to date ends when he takes off. where there other people around he could have injured or attacked?

the notion that cops go looking to kill is bullshit. you might get the odd rougue, but there are a lot more on the opposite side trying to kill them.

I do wish that people would stop arguing with these things as if I'm stating my "opinion". I am simply repeating the prosecutor's relevant conclusions. Specifically, that the taser was useless because the police had already discharged it twice and that the shooter well knew that to be the case. That is part of the express basis upon which the prosecutor laid the charges. Hence, we come back to a guy shooting an unarmed guy in the back, twice, as the unarmed guy was running away.

[Pies4shaw]

^ “ Surveillance video showed Brooks running through the parking lot with the officers behind him. At one point, Brooks turned and allegedly shot the stun gun at Rolfe, who drew his weapon and opened fire”

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/abcnews ... d=71318421

Sounds pretty acceptable split second to me.

Except that he didn't. Because we now know it had already been discharged, twice. Why do people keep bringing up such nonsense? Anyone would think there was some basis of factual dispute.

So, here again is what the prosecutor based the charges on (this is a repost):

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... rett-rolfe

“The Atlanta officer who fatally shot Rayshard Brooks in the back after the fleeing man pointed a stun gun in his direction faces 11 charges, including felony murder, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

Prosecutors said Brooks, who was black, posed no threat when he was gunned down and that the white officer kicked him and offered no medical treatment as he lay dying on the ground.

Brooks was holding a stun gun he had snatched from officers but was 18ft, 3in away when he was shot by Officer Garrett Rolfe and was running away at the time, District Attorney Paul Howard said in announcing the charges five days after the killing outside a Wendy’s restaurant rocked the city.

....

In announcing the charges Brooks [sic] revealed disturbing details about the incident. Howard revealed that Rolfe knew the taser Brooks took from him was not functional as it had already been fired twice and thus was of no use when he shot Brooks twice in the back as he was running away.

The detail underscores that Rolfe was aware he was in no physical danger when he fatally shot Brooks. Cameras also captured Rolfe kicking Brooks as he was on the ground struggling for his life.”

Focus, if you will, on the bit in bold.

[Morrigu]

^ yes but the Prosecutor hasn’t proven this to be the case yet has he - so it is not fact yet is it? And given the Prosecutor also said “Mr. Brooks was calm, cordial and cooperative,” “Mr. Brooks never presented himself as a threat,” I wouldn’t be taking everything he said as gospel just quietly!


Attorneys for the officers said Wednesday that Rolfe's actions were justified under the law.

"Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him -- Mr. Brooks’ back," the attorneys said. "When Mr. Brooks turned and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe, any officer would have reasonably believed that he intended to disarm, disable, or seriously injure him."
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/abcnews ... d=71318421


And they haven’t proved their case either - we shall see when both opinions and theories are tested in Court.

[Pies4shaw]

"Yes but". It's just a waste of time having a conversation isn't it? Try doing a compare and contrast between your willingness to accept that there might be an alternative explanation when a cop is caught on film killing an unarmed man who is running away with the views taken on here about the victims. Let me know the point at which you think it has gone beyond mere victim-blaming and become institutionalised racism, won't you?

Next, let's try a few of these:

https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2 ... index.html

We can probably get up to 400 pages defending indefensible police actions if we work at it.

[think positive]

Take your own advice Re the willingness to look at another point of view

As for just stating what someone else said, people only do that if the agree, otherwise they say ‘what a crock’

Innocent victim?

Drunk in the drivers seat, fought off to cops, took one of their weapons (not sure where the time was for the conversation between the cops as the criminal ran away and then pointed the stolen weapon at the cop ‘it’s ok George trust me I’ve fired it twice it won’t work.”

He was not an innocent victim, he was a criminal the second he got in the drivers seat drunk, resisted arrest, assaulted 2 police officers, theft of a weapon, and then menaced with said weapon whilst trying to avoid a legal arrest.

[think positive]

^ yes but the Prosecutor hasn’t proven this to be the case yet has he - so it is not fact yet is it? And given the Prosecutor also said “Mr. Brooks was calm, cordial and cooperative,” “Mr. Brooks never presented himself as a threat,” I wouldn’t be taking everything he said as gospel just quietly!


Attorneys for the officers said Wednesday that Rolfe's actions were justified under the law.

"Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him -- Mr. Brooks’ back," the attorneys said. "When Mr. Brooks turned and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe, any officer would have reasonably believed that he intended to disarm, disable, or seriously injure him."
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/abcnews ... d=71318421


And they haven’t proved their case either - we shall see when both opinions and theories are tested in Court.

Great post

[think positive]

Sure, absolutely, get rid of the guns. Meanwhile, Pies4shaw has asked the one really important question.

"Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?"

He wasn’t unarmed

[Morrigu]

"Yes but". It's just a waste of time having a conversation isn't it? Try doing a compare and contrast between your willingness to accept that there might be an alternative explanation when a cop is caught on film killing an unarmed man who is running away with the views taken on here about the victims. Let me know the point at which you think it has gone beyond mere victim-blaming and become institutionalised racism, won't you?

Next, let's try a few of these:

https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2 ... index.html

We can probably get up to 400 pages defending indefensible police actions if we work at it.

Sure no problem - obviously it is a complete waste of time and money having lawyers and courts lets just go with what an elected Prosecutor ( even dodgy ones under investigation for misappropriation of funds) say - all that saved money could be redirected into social programs to address poverty and improve living conditions which may help to decrease the crime rate!

You have decided based on your own prejudices guilt beyond doubt - I haven’t I will wait and hear both sides and the evidence - if it is proven that the officer in question acted improperly then he deserves whatever sentence he is given!

[Wokko]

Sure, absolutely, get rid of the guns. Meanwhile, Pies4shaw has asked the one really important question.

"Which part of the shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away did you think constituted an acceptable split second decision?"

How does an "unarmed" man shoot a taser?