Ask Me Help Desk - The manefestation of a bigger problem

Quote:

He wasn't next to the cop,

10 ft is close enough to get hit by a taser .

Quote:

still no justifiable homicide

says the person who never walked a mile in cops shoes . You can have all the opinions you want about the shooting being justified .That's all it is ;opinion.

Here is what Georgia laws says about it .....
a person can use deadly force "if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person."

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-1...t-16-3-21.html

The Atlanta policy manual (updated last week )states that an officer can use deadly force when "He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others."
http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/...ttachmentA.pdf

Tasers are hand-held electronic stun guns which fire two barbed darts up to a distance of 21 feet, which remain attached to the gun by wires. The fish-hook like darts are designed to penetrate up to two inches of the target's clothing or skin and deliver a high-voltage, low amperage, electro-shock along insulated copper wires. (a 50,000 volt shock) . More than 500 people have been killed when tasers were employed in the US according to Amnesty International . So yes there is a threat that being shot by a taser can be fatal.
So the bottom line is that according to Georgia law it was completely justified and it followed the use of force policy guidelines .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

10 ft is close enough to get hit by a taser .

"...or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person."

"...result in serious bodily injury

So why do cops carry them? I've seen videos of tasers being held against and released on an apprehended person's neck or other body part. Isn't carrying a gun sufficient?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The only question is was it a lawful use of force ? I might suggest that Rayshard Brooks dictated the options . The cops could NOT release him on his promise to walk home and they could not let him get back in the car after he failed a sobriety test . Mothers against drunk driving might take issue with that . He is the one who resisted arrest . He is the one who punched the cop in the face .He is the one who wrestled the taser away from the cop . He is the one who began to flee . He is the one who continued to engage the cop by turning and firing the taser at the cop. When you talk about the cops options maybe you should consider what Brooks could've done differently . These officers did not escalate the situation, . Brooks did.

Brooks was under the influence and no doubt he screwed up. We don't need a hypothetical here he grabbed the taser broke free and ran. Those fact are not in dispute and neither is getting shot in the back while fleeing. The onus is on the cops decision to shoot when he did. Shooting a guy in the back though is homicide and nothing justifies that. Now if he had capped a real shot off, that could be justified returning fire.

That just ain't what happened. I know cops have a tough dangerous job, and yes they make mistakes in the heat of the situations, a fatal one as in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

he grabbed the taser broke free and ran.

And why couldn't the police just let him run? They had his car, could have gotten it towed or at least moved out of the way. They knew who he was and where to find him, I'm guessing.

Yes. Let him run off with a Taser and possibly injure someone. That's a great plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yes. Let him run off with a Taser and possibly injure someone. That's a great plan.

And they are so expensive too! (If they handled it right, they'd get their taser back again.) And he won't injure someone if he doesn't have a taser!

And no effort was made to help the guy.

He should have just called for back up at that point, and had some help, and charged the guy with a bunch of stuff. I can understand the cop not wanting a second physical confrontation since the first one didn't work out too well. He probably should have called for back up before telling him he would be arrested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yes. Let him run off with a Taser and possibly injure someone. That's a great plan.

Oh my, we can't allow him to run off with our taser, can we! Let's shoot him in the back instead!

"Oh my, we can't allow him to run off with our taser, can we!" says the woman who has zero experience with a taser or being a policeman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"Oh my, we can't allow him to run off with our taser, can we!" says the woman who has zero experience with a taser or being a policeman.

Talking out of your backside again? You have no idea of my involvement with policemen.

Quote:

You have no idea of my involvement with policemen.

Not interested in your personnel life. 8D. At any rate, I'm certain you know nothing about tasers or the daily experience of being a cop since you would never have made such a careless statement if you did.

The guy passed the field sobriety tests and barely failed the breathalyzer, but they couldn't just let him walk home on a Friday night, just down the street? No he gets to spend the weekend in jail after talking to the cops for a half an hour. After seeing the new videos he wasn't drunk enough not to just walk home. Now what's wrong with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Not interested in your personnel life. 8D. At any rate, I'm certain you know nothing about tasers or the daily experience of being a cop since you would never have made such a careless statement if you did.

Now you hard core law and order conservatives are getting pretty sexist. There is no justification for shooting a guy running home in the back, with a taser or not! I think it's pretty dumb to think it is, like he didn't have better options, than murder. Yeah get rid of bad cops and dumb ones too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Not interested in your personnel life. 8D. At any rate, I'm certain you know nothing about tasers or the daily experience of being a cop since you would never have made such a careless statement if you did.

Now you're egging me on to defend myself and tell you all about my experience with law enforcement. Won't work!

I just watched a video of the cop giving Brooks a sobriety test. The cop was trying every which way to antagonize him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I just watched a video of the cop giving Brooks a sobriety test. The cop was trying every which way to antagonize him.

The cop was doing his job. he didn't read him his rights but he could have been in no doubt he was going to be arrested, therefore why did he resist?

We'll never know that Clete, since he's dead. He was wrong to resist wrong in everything that followed true enough, after failing to convince the officers to give him a break. I'm convinced though, that other much better options besides shooting him in the back were available to the officers. That's where that de escalation training should have kicked in. The coroner ruled it a homicide and that means charges could be brought and the rest is a court matter.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...de/ar-BB15tHrq

Bad judgement on both sides.

Quote:

Now you're egging me on to defend myself and tell you all about my experience with law enforcement. Won't work!

I don't care if you defend yourself or not. Your comment told me all I needed to know.

Let him walk home??? After falling asleep in his car and blocking a restaurant drive through, and then being found to be drunk? No way. In my world, that guy's going to be arrested. But I'll tell you how this lunacy is going to end. When the Wondergirls and the Tals of this world call 911 and get a busy signal, or the cops show up but refuse to get involved, then all of this anti-police rhetoric, along with the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police, will begin to end. I look forward to that day.

I'll predict now that the fired cop in Atlanta will never have to work again once he gets through suing the city of Atlanta. Murder charges? I can't imagine they will be able to make that stick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police,

In case there was any doubt about your racism, you have removed it once and for all with your statement above.

Amazing how you can make a sexist statement against WG re her knowledge about police when you yourself exhibit an ignorance about police procedure.

Add that to your clear self-indictment of your blatant racism. and you have lost all credibility here. Don't forget to put your statements in your little book.

Nobody calls a cop on a white guy jogging, sitting in a hotel lobby, or a Starbucks, or just sitting in a park. Nobody asks a white guy what he's doing in this neighborhood either. Cops don't profile or stop and frisk white guys either. Well they do but that's very rare, and isolated.

Quote:

In case there was any doubt about your racism, you have removed it once and for all with your statement above.

In case there was any doubt about your basic dullness, you have removed it with your statement above. I've said nothing racist. You just still have, as they used to say, "a burr under your saddle" about being shown to be practicing deceit in your Aquinas statement.

It really gets old having to deal with people like you. You don't like what someone says, then that's fine. Engage their comments. That's what we're here for, but we have reached the point where non-thinking people like you just like to toss terms around in the hope, I suppose, of trying to intimidate. You can forget that. No one like you is going to intimidate me.

Quote:

Nobody calls a cop on a white guy jogging, sitting in a hotel lobby, or a Starbucks, or just sitting in a park. Nobody asks a white guy what he's doing in this neighborhood either. Cops don't profile or stop and frisk white guys either.

How much you wanna bet that is not correct? If what you say is true, then show us the data. It's just crazy that you just blow off abortions and gay marriages as "rare events", but then want to act like there is some sort of epidemic of anti-black policing going on. I guess you would say, "Oh, hundreds of times the police are called to arrest a black man for jogging, or for sitting in a hotel lobby, or for sitting in a Starbucks Coffee shop." Well, that is not true, and the data is clear on that. To make matters worse, the police did not handle the man who was jogging, and the Starbucks incident was due to the man wanting free use of the restroom without buying any products. The abortion "clinic" I go to once a week (You know...where those "rare" abortions take place) has a building with restaurants across the street. There is a sign on the door. "Restrooms are for customer use only." That is not uncommon. So even your examples are nonsense.

1 million abortions in America out of 166 million women. RARE!

Using your logic, 10 unarmed black men killed by the police last year would be extraordinarily, fantastically, incredibly rare. In fact, 100,000 times more rare than an abortion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't care if you defend yourself or not. Your comment told me all I needed to know.

And that is? (Love your veiled threats!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Let him walk home???

He said his sister lived nearby. Why couldn't one of the cops have walked there with him, made sure his sister was home and then told her what had happened. He could have been ticketed and released to his sister.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

He said his sister lived nearby. Why couldn't one of the cops have walked there with him, made sure his sister was home and then told her what had happened. He could have been ticketed and released to his sister.

That would have been to much like serving and protecting and everybody goes home safely. I'm sure it sounded reasonable until the officer said naw, your going to jail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Using your logic, 10 unarmed black men killed by the police last year would be extraordinarily, fantastically, incredibly rare. In fact, 100,000 times more rare than an abortion.

So we're both blowing smoke over nothing. Okay!

Quote:

And that is? (Love your veiled threats!)

Threat?? No threat there, but there is an acknowledgement of your never ending tactic. "Oh! You are pressuring poor ole me. Well, you won't get an answer now, mister!" If you want to say something, then say it. If you don't, then at least don't blame it on someone else.

DUI offenders don't get the courtesy of a walk home. I applaud the policemen for deciding to arrest him. People caught drinking and driving get no sympathy from me.

Quote:

So we're both blowing smoke over nothing. Okay!

Except, of course, that I should be entitled to about 100,000 times more smoke than you. But I'm glad to hear you say that all of your excitement about BLM amounts to just "blowing smoke".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've said nothing racist.

Your very own quote - own it - "...the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police " That line is right out of the racist playbook. More and more disproven by the ever-increasing number of videos being made available almost every day now, and by the testimony of so many black men and women of substance - both from ordinary folks and from professionals. In the face of such proof, your denials are idiotic.

Quote:

being shown to be practicing deceit in your Aquinas statement.

This is getting old, but when you have nothing, you come up with anything.

Quote:

You don't like what someone says, then that's fine. Engage their comments.

That's exactly what I do and have done. The insult and shaming prize is all yours alone.

Quote:

No one like you is going to intimidate me.

You're easily intimidated. Clearly shown by your nastiness in lieu of cogent reasoning. The very fact of your bringing up intimidation is a "tell" - one of many you reveal in so many of your posts.

You don't WANT to be intimidated, but you know what they say about a leopard and its spots......

Quote:

Your very own quote - own it - "...the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police " That line is right out of the racist playbook

Sheer stupidity. "I disagree with you, so you must be a racist!" Is "Sieg Heil!" coming next?

Quote:

This is getting old

Yeah. The truth is wearing you out. It was one of the most pathetic instances of flat out lying I have seen in a long time. You got called on it and it still grinds on you.

Quote:

You're easily intimidated. Clearly shown by your nastiness in lieu of cogent reasoning. The very fact of your bringing up intimidation is a "tell" - one of many you reveal in so many of your posts.

"Cogent reasoning?" Well, if I point out that the data does not support the idea of a persecution of black men by the police (and it does not), you immediately cry, "Racist!" Is that your idea of cogent reasoning, or of engaging a person's comments?

Intimidation? No little man like you can do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sheer stupidity. "I disagree with you, so you must be a racist!" Is "Sieg Heil!" coming next?

The sheer stupidity is all yours. "Sieg Heil" is an another interesting choice of words of yours.

Quote:

flat out lying I have seen in a long time. You got called on it

Isn't this the sort of thing you just objected to? You disagree - ergo lie.

Quote:

I point out that the data does not support the idea of a persecution of black men by the police (and it does not), you immediately cry, "Racist!"

There are statistics (data) and there are statistics. They can be used to prove anything. What you need is to work on getting the truth at ground level. You learned nothing for those 17 years. (If they are real). Start listening to the people talking about the black experience - not lifeless statistics.

Quote:

Intimidation? No little man like you can do that.

It's already been done. Sorry.

We're all still waiting for your answer to the question.

According to JL, there is no racism! Slavery was just a way of life and nothing personal. I wonder how he would have fared after 400 years of beatings rapes and being sold, forced into hard labor for the civilized Christian white masters and then going through Jim Crow in the poor a$$ south after the Civil War, or the terror of being lynched and spit on by the town fathers who loved hoods and cruelty to keep those ex slaves in there place. Like it was our fault we were freed. It's the black mans fault the south is poor, and racism is doesn't exist. You say you spent 17 years in the inner city, and know what the black man needs to make it huh, and stop complaining about conditions when all we have to do is change it and raise ourselves up, when everybody in the south is poor too, but only the black people are poor because they won't listen to a white man telling them what to do.

Obviously those poor white folks ain't listening to you either. 'Cept on Sundays for a few hours and some good old lemonade. Wonder if your tune would change if your skin were different?

Quote:

"Sieg Heil" is an another interesting choice of words of yours.

Yeah. Funny how it immediately came to mind when reading your Nazi-like post. It amounts to, "He doesn't agree with us. We must silence him!"

Quote:

Isn't this the sort of thing you just objected to? You disagree - ergo lie.

Nah. You were just lying. Simple case of getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Quote:

There are statistics (data) and there are statistics. They can be used to prove anything. What you need is to work on getting the truth at ground level. You learned nothing for those 17 years. (If they are real). Start listening to the people talking about the black experience - not lifeless statistics.

I knew it was just a matter of time before you posted that. It's the eternal plea of those who cannot support their arguments. "You can prove anything with statistics." No, actually you cannot, but you can establish the truth. Your little anecdotal stories are NEVER allowed as data in any serious presentation. You would be laughed out of the classroom.

This is so funny. Not 24 hours ago, on this thread, I posted what I copied below. In it I predicted that you would come back in a few months and rehash the whole thing. It didn't even take a day! That's what I hate about these discussions. It's always the same garbage. "You don't agree with me, so you like slavery, you deny racism, you support murdering cops, it's all the fault of the black people," and on and on the nauseating crap goes. It's the "blah, blah, blah" of my post from yesterday. You have nothing to say, so you lie about what I've said.

From yesterday: "I've done so several times. I am a white southerner, but I have no romantic affection with the old Confederacy. I am glad the South lost the Civil War, and I am ashamed of those who participated in an unspeakably cruel and unjust institution. Now having said all of that, I know full well that you will come back in a few months and say, You don't acknowledge blah blah blah."

Thank you for validating what I posted. So completely predictable!!

Predictable that you would in some way make it about you, and make sure only you can be right, and that makes everybody who disagrees, or offers their own views, wrong. Takes a strong backbone to stomach your logic sometimes my friend. 8D

You have to admit. You just walked right into it.

Have to be right? I put data in front of you. If it's wrong, then show that it is.

I did, but you must have missed it. Getting old ain't easy.

Quote:

therefore why did he resist?

That Clete is almost always the case in these cases of cops killings . I can't speak of shared experiences . But what I was taught was to respect the police and if ever they stopped me to do what they said ;and if I thought they were wrong in any way ,to tell it to a lawyer or a judge. I got pulled over a few times when I was younger . The first thing I would do is put on my flashers ;and turn on the dome light ;and put my hands on the dash board where they were clearly visible . Then I would follow the cops directions ... if he asked for my license I would tell him it was in my pocket and asked permission to remove it . If he asked for my registration and insurance I would tell him they were in the glove compartment and I would ask permission to get them . If he told me to get out of the car I would . If he shined a flash light in my car I did not tell him he had no right to do that . If he physically searched my car I let him do it and did not demand to see a warrant . If I got a ticket I would accept it without objection. I got a ticket one time for speeding when I was not speeding.I contested it in court ;not on the street .

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I knew it was just a matter of time before you posted that.

You did?

Quote:

Your little anecdotal stories are NEVER allowed as data in any serious presentation.

What "little anecdotal stories"?

Quote:

You did?

Utterly predictable. You have no stats, so you discount their importance. Common.

Quote:

What "little anecdotal stories"?

Remember this? "Start listening to the people talking about the black experience - not lifeless statistics." Not to remind you that between the two of us, I'm the one with 17 years of actually working in minority communities as compared to your 17 milliseconds.

"Lifeless statistics." That made me laugh.

Quote:

I did, but you must have missed it. Getting old ain't easy.

You haven't posted squat in the way of data.