The knee to the neck that started this latest round of protests was obviously out of line- I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone dispute that. I don’t get the uproar over this one though. Pretty simple rules- don’t take a weapon from a cop while they are arresting you. I watched all the angles, and while they could have chosen to let him run away with their taser, once he pointed that thing at them he earned the shot. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It is ridiculous that the cop was fired and the chief stepped down. Makes no sense.
RayShaud Brooks shooting
- Thread starter Wyosam
- Start date
Yes it's gotten to the point a cop can't even protect himself now......When the lawyers are lying about what was on the tape on TV you know the inmates are starting to run the asylum......and resisting arrest is OK as long as you use force..........there's a whole lot of bad messaging going on this deal and it's sending the wrong signals to many younger folks who might commit a small infraction , that could ruin their lives.
Sad but true. I see both sides- there have definitely been some excessive force situations over the years (though we mostly only here about it when its white cop/black suspect). I feel for the black people who feel that fear- I’ve got friends and family that live that fear. But at the same time, being a cop has a whole different set of fears. The physical fear of wanting to make it home to their family at the end of the shift, and the fear of losing their career and potentially their freedom when they have to make split second decisions. Sucks all around, really.
Homer
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 14,321
it does.....it is awful for both sides. All four of the cops in Minnesota are targets for life.....guilty or not. This latest police chief resigning so fast is an example of NOT supporting the employees they lead....no doubt escaping with a comfortable retirement.....leaving the force to fend for itself....
What is the answer??....you can't come to an agreement with an insane opponent
What is the answer??....you can't come to an agreement with an insane opponent
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,492
Stats show that a cop is 18 times more likely to be shot by a black person and cops are aware of those stats. Also the police chief stepping down may have been a forced decision from the Mayor who told her you are the scrape goat, step down or be fired. I have heard reports that the officers liked her as their chief and she may have sided with the officer as being a justifiable shooting under dept. regulations and criminal code. The mayor seems to be the racist in the mix and advocating that no officer will shoot a black person.
You can bet because of the mayor's decision, officers in that city are going to turn a blind eye on black crime and making arrests for fear of losing their job and family income if they have to use force to make an arrest. Crime in the black community will sky rocket because of it. Maybe then those voting citizens in the black community will wise up and vote out the liberals running their city.
If they don't, piss on them as they made their bed and now must sleep in it.
RELH
You can bet because of the mayor's decision, officers in that city are going to turn a blind eye on black crime and making arrests for fear of losing their job and family income if they have to use force to make an arrest. Crime in the black community will sky rocket because of it. Maybe then those voting citizens in the black community will wise up and vote out the liberals running their city.
If they don't, piss on them as they made their bed and now must sleep in it.
RELH
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
I hope everyone is in agreement, maybe not vocally, that crime committed by people with certain "credentials" cannot be ignored for fear of retaliation.
Only way to correct poor and unprofessional treatment is accepting accountability for both sides.
The average Joe has to understand that actions have consequences and Johnny Law can't assume guilty until proven innocent.
Only way to correct poor and unprofessional treatment is accepting accountability for both sides.
The average Joe has to understand that actions have consequences and Johnny Law can't assume guilty until proven innocent.
True but in order to motivate positive change it's on the press to report in a more fair manner. Sanitizing the black on white crimes and black on black crimes distorts the picture. It also tends to inflame the situation rather then defuse it with the facts. The hands of editors crating a false dialogue to fit an agenda isn't in anyone's best interests.
Homer
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 14,321
I thought I heard the same thing....I despise leftist radicals equally....white or black....or pink or yellow or brown or purple
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,593
I’ve been shitfaced before. But I’ve never passed out in Wendy’s drive through.
The video “clearly” shows how racist these cops were. I mean with the politeness and all.
How there isn’t mass exodus out of the cities by cops is astounding. They should give out business cards at each stop with the mayors phone number on it., then just walk away.
Floyd was murder.
This ain’t close
The video “clearly” shows how racist these cops were. I mean with the politeness and all.
How there isn’t mass exodus out of the cities by cops is astounding. They should give out business cards at each stop with the mayors phone number on it., then just walk away.
Floyd was murder.
This ain’t close
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,492
I do think passing the Mayor's phone number might be a good one. Years ago in our dept. the jail was sued by the left wing ACLU lawyers. ACLU won and we had to provide color T.V. sets in each block. Law library for the prisoners with unlimited access. Exercise yard on the roof of the jail and few other odds and ends.
Every time a prisoner would complain to a jail deputy about his rights being violated, the deputy would give the prisoner the office and home phone numbers of the ACLU attorneys. Within two weeks those liberal lawyers had changed their home phones to unlisted numbers as they did not wish to talk to a criminal at midnight about his rights being violated because he did not get ribeye steak for dinner. For some reason they would not give those new phone numbers to anyone in our dept.
RELH
Every time a prisoner would complain to a jail deputy about his rights being violated, the deputy would give the prisoner the office and home phone numbers of the ACLU attorneys. Within two weeks those liberal lawyers had changed their home phones to unlisted numbers as they did not wish to talk to a criminal at midnight about his rights being violated because he did not get ribeye steak for dinner. For some reason they would not give those new phone numbers to anyone in our dept.
RELH
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
There are definately plenty of "scallywags" with pale skin tones running around.
Tackdriver
Active Member
- Messages
- 232
The question is....If it was a Kentucky Fried Chicken instead of Wendys, would they of still burnt it down?
Bluehair
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,979
My initial reaction was that I would be pissed if I was Wendy's and the Wendys franchise owner, but I have changed my mind.
This is a once-in-a-corporate-lifetime thing (+/- 20 years) for Big Wendy's, so lets see if they squander it.
The franchisee will get a check for the building, and then turn around and sell the property to BLM with donations made to their non-profit. He can then go on to create a charitable foundation to buy up other distressed properties in urban paradises. Yes, the American Dream.
Better hurry though before the Biden campaign gets all those charitable donations.
This is a once-in-a-corporate-lifetime thing (+/- 20 years) for Big Wendy's, so lets see if they squander it.
The franchisee will get a check for the building, and then turn around and sell the property to BLM with donations made to their non-profit. He can then go on to create a charitable foundation to buy up other distressed properties in urban paradises. Yes, the American Dream.
Better hurry though before the Biden campaign gets all those charitable donations.
Serious question, not looking to start a pissing match about all cops are this or all cops are that.
As I understand it, police officers are allowed to use deadly force if they believe there is a risk to themselves or others of death or serious bodily injury. In this case, given that all we know is what you can see from the body cam and security video, where are either of those two conditions met? Isn't a taser considered less than lethal? Isn't it a one use item? I would assume the officer that fired the shots would have known this so where is the belief on the officers part that this individual posed a threat of death or serious bodily injury to anyone? I personally don't see any so is there something I am missing?
As I understand it, police officers are allowed to use deadly force if they believe there is a risk to themselves or others of death or serious bodily injury. In this case, given that all we know is what you can see from the body cam and security video, where are either of those two conditions met? Isn't a taser considered less than lethal? Isn't it a one use item? I would assume the officer that fired the shots would have known this so where is the belief on the officers part that this individual posed a threat of death or serious bodily injury to anyone? I personally don't see any so is there something I am missing?
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
Did the perp really know he had a taser or did he think he had a service weapon?
What would've happened had he fired the taser and struck the pursuing officer? Still run or do something else?
The intent was there to do bodily harm, that is how the prosecutor would portray it.
What would've happened had he fired the taser and struck the pursuing officer? Still run or do something else?
The intent was there to do bodily harm, that is how the prosecutor would portray it.
Does it matter what the perp thought he had? I suppose if the officer thought he had a gun then it would matter.
Is getting hit with a taser considered serious bodily injury? Do know, never been hit with one.
Intent may have been to do bodily harm, actually looks more like wanting to get away to me but that's my opinion not fact, but could that harm be considered serious?
Is getting hit with a taser considered serious bodily injury? Do know, never been hit with one.
Intent may have been to do bodily harm, actually looks more like wanting to get away to me but that's my opinion not fact, but could that harm be considered serious?
eelgrass
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 31,540
That's actually a good question in my opinion. I'd like to hear what RELH thinks.
If I was the cop I don't think I could just kill the guy as he's running away and missed with the taser. Sure, I'd be pissed he struggled and broke free and ran with my taser. That would be a blow to my ego. I'd shoot him in the leg if at all.
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
Yeah, it really does matter what he thought he had.
Last edited:
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,492
Mulecreek, it is reasonable to think that if the suspect used the taser to disable the officer, he then could snatch the officer's gun and finish off the officer. Also a baton being used by a officer is also considered to be non lethal,due to the officer being trained not to use that baton to strike certain parts of the body that could result in death. That same baton in the hands of a criminal is considered to be a LETHAL WEAPON due to the criminal may try to strike a person in the head to kill him.
There is no such thing as "NON-LETHAL" WEAPON. In reality it is "LESS THEN LETHAL" as even tear gas under the right circumstances have proven to be lethal when used.
A taser has killed people that had medical conditions such as unknown heart conditions.
Eel even if a officer shot to wound, such as a leg or shoulder aimed shot, the discharging of that firearm is considered the use of DEADLY FORCE as a shot in the leg or arm-shoulder could strike a major blood vessel that would cause death due to the lost of blood. So if you shoot, you are shooting to kill as the law looks at it.
RELH
There is no such thing as "NON-LETHAL" WEAPON. In reality it is "LESS THEN LETHAL" as even tear gas under the right circumstances have proven to be lethal when used.
A taser has killed people that had medical conditions such as unknown heart conditions.
Eel even if a officer shot to wound, such as a leg or shoulder aimed shot, the discharging of that firearm is considered the use of DEADLY FORCE as a shot in the leg or arm-shoulder could strike a major blood vessel that would cause death due to the lost of blood. So if you shoot, you are shooting to kill as the law looks at it.
RELH
RELH,
Thanks for the response that is helpful. So it is safe to say that the officer is taught to perceive that if a suspect gets a hold of one of your weapons, regardless of what it is, then you are justified in using deadly force? Is that true of any physical altercation? If a suspect fights with the officer are they taught that deadly force is justified because they could easily get a hold of one of your weapons? If it is then this is good info to know. It seemed to me in some circumstances that the officer was getting ahead of themselves by firing his gun but if this how it is taught then it explains a lot more.
Thanks for the response that is helpful. So it is safe to say that the officer is taught to perceive that if a suspect gets a hold of one of your weapons, regardless of what it is, then you are justified in using deadly force? Is that true of any physical altercation? If a suspect fights with the officer are they taught that deadly force is justified because they could easily get a hold of one of your weapons? If it is then this is good info to know. It seemed to me in some circumstances that the officer was getting ahead of themselves by firing his gun but if this how it is taught then it explains a lot more.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,593
Had the officer patted him down?
if not then based upon dudes actions it’s not unreasonable to assume he may have had a weapon ant intent to use it.
if he had been patted down then ya, gun vs taser is excessive.
But further. The cop who didn’t shoot, his face is all over.
I hope he sues every media source around for doing so.
Just finished reading an interview with 3 former LEO's. They all said the shooting was legal but avoidable. It mentioned that he had been patted down but even still, similar to what RELH stated, once the fight is on and a weapon is taken deadly force is a potential legal outcome.
RookieWYhntr
Active Member
- Messages
- 691
I have a cop neighbor and we talked about this. What he said was he wouldn't have shot the guy. Why?
If he was by himself and the perp shot at him with a taser he would return fire. Since there were two cops there even if he was shot with the taser, his partner would have prevented the perp from going for his gun.
Me personally, I would have shot the perp.
If he was by himself and the perp shot at him with a taser he would return fire. Since there were two cops there even if he was shot with the taser, his partner would have prevented the perp from going for his gun.
Me personally, I would have shot the perp.
CAforkedhorn
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,529
So I think also that the shooting was "legal" but VERY avoidable. If you really think about the situation, the cops had his car and all the information they needed on him. They had a breathalyzer and they contacted him while he was behind the wheel of the vehicle. When dude started fighting and broke free he was RUNNING AWAY which means any imminent threat of bodily harm or death was quickly dwindling. The cops could have simply let him go and impounded his vehicle, and arrested him later with the now enhanced charges of resisting, assault and whatever else besides the DUI.
We are taught that if someone breaks into our house and we confront them with our gun, we will be charged with murder if the perp turns and flees and we shoot him in the back. I completely agree that if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes and I also agree that cops are asked to make split second decisions but to me they knew he had the tazer and that it is less than lethal. They knew he was fleeing and they knew they had all of his information so they could have let it go. There is literally zero possibility that he could have tazed one officer and retrieved his service weapon because at that point the other officer would be expected to shoot him.
Here's what I expect to happen next. The investigation will say the cop was justified and the family will sue the city. The attorney(s) will say that cops argue all the time in court that tazers are non lethal weapons so they should not have feared for their lives and therefore it was murder. Much like the family of George Floyd the family will be awarded millions at the expense of the taxpayers over something completely avoidable. Essentially the city has already rolled over with the immediate resignation of the police chief and the immediate termination of the officer. The case probably won't even see a courtroom because the city will simply ask how much money the family wants.
We are taught that if someone breaks into our house and we confront them with our gun, we will be charged with murder if the perp turns and flees and we shoot him in the back. I completely agree that if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes and I also agree that cops are asked to make split second decisions but to me they knew he had the tazer and that it is less than lethal. They knew he was fleeing and they knew they had all of his information so they could have let it go. There is literally zero possibility that he could have tazed one officer and retrieved his service weapon because at that point the other officer would be expected to shoot him.
Here's what I expect to happen next. The investigation will say the cop was justified and the family will sue the city. The attorney(s) will say that cops argue all the time in court that tazers are non lethal weapons so they should not have feared for their lives and therefore it was murder. Much like the family of George Floyd the family will be awarded millions at the expense of the taxpayers over something completely avoidable. Essentially the city has already rolled over with the immediate resignation of the police chief and the immediate termination of the officer. The case probably won't even see a courtroom because the city will simply ask how much money the family wants.
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 37,538
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,492
The insurance agency for the city will try to settle out of court. The city may have to pay some if they have a self insured limit. Them firing the officer gave the defense the perfect weapon to use in Civil court to collect damages.
If the officer fights his termination, he will more then likely win his job back with back pay, or he may turn around himself and sue the city for a illegal termination and also collect big bucks from the city.
If I was the officer, I would fight the termination and if winning that case in court, go for the big bucks and tell the city fathers to kiss my behind as I do not owe you any loyalty.
RELH
If the officer fights his termination, he will more then likely win his job back with back pay, or he may turn around himself and sue the city for a illegal termination and also collect big bucks from the city.
If I was the officer, I would fight the termination and if winning that case in court, go for the big bucks and tell the city fathers to kiss my behind as I do not owe you any loyalty.
RELH
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,593
The chief running away was about as gutless of a thing as I’ve seen. How blue flu hasn’t become a nationwide epidemic is beyond me.
I’d agree that avoidable is somewhat true. But what exactly is the point? Your free to do whatever you want because your black?
If a cop let a white guy pull that stunt and run home, the NAACPwould scream to high heaven that “white privledge” happened.
A decent mayor, police chief, etc would be all over TV explains that fighting with cops is bad. To get a lawyer and go to court.
The Furguson effect will soon look like child’s play. And in the end, it only hurts the very community “supposedly” cops target.
I’d agree that avoidable is somewhat true. But what exactly is the point? Your free to do whatever you want because your black?
If a cop let a white guy pull that stunt and run home, the NAACPwould scream to high heaven that “white privledge” happened.
A decent mayor, police chief, etc would be all over TV explains that fighting with cops is bad. To get a lawyer and go to court.
The Furguson effect will soon look like child’s play. And in the end, it only hurts the very community “supposedly” cops target.
