Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[myth]

For all of those having a hard time finding a good video that shows a lot of what happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo


Action starts around 41 minutes into the video.

[Mountain Man]

For all of those having a hard time finding a good video that shows a lot of what happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

Dude fought off two full grown men who at one point were dog piled on top of him. Was he drunk or on amphetamines?

[myth]

I'd guess that he was too sleepy for amphetamines, but I take your point. Guess we'll find out soon, if autopsy and toxicology reports are public record in Georgia.

[oxmixmudd]

And once again, crickets from the liberals here when someone makes a substantive argument with inconvenient things like facts and logic. Still waiting on responses to my questions, or counter arguments to any of what I've said. Instead, we get you coming in here and repeating outright fabrications by the DA and the media. Show me in the video where they kick Brooks, please. People keep saying this but I haven't seen it in the video. And that slobbering idiot of a DA has zero credibility after doing what he's done. He literally is charging these officers and he doesn't even have the case file from the investigating agency (the GBI). Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

The DA presented a picture from a video THEY have from another angle. I don't even know if they've released that video, but the still from the camera video is in the link I posted with the DA discussing the charges. But those ARE the facts as presented by that DA.

Are you going to propose they just made it up?

'outright fabrications'?

'slobbering idiot'? - are you sure you didn't just want to say 'monkey' or 'chimpanzee'? I mean, why try to even pretend at this point?




Disgusting.

[Cow Poke]

I love those! You give them enough warning, then mark down that they refused to comply with the test and voila, their license gets revoked for a year just because they refused the test (implied consent laws CAN be fun). Then you take them to the hospital, get a search warrant, take their blood and continue with your case anyways. Refusals are my favorite. I once had a guy that loudly demanded into my recording that he was NOT consenting to the blood draw but simply was choosing not to fight us because he didn't want to be violent. In fact, he wouldn't calm down until I showed him my notes where I wrote down the time of his refusal and quoted his statements. Guess he didn't realize what he was doing (even though we have to read them a form that says if they refuse they lose their license). Of course, his lawyer had entirely different stuff to say later....

I've actually almost BEGGED people, "please, don't take my word for it, call your lawyer and ask if it's a good idea to refuse to comply", because they were otherwise good people, but there's only so much you can do.

So, yeah, when they absolutely refuse to comply, and you're doing your best to help them....

But my FAVORITE part was that we were required to READ to them "you are now under arrest for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and will be required by a law enforcement agency to submit to a chemical test to determine.... blah blah blah.... failure to comply with this directive will result in the loss of your license for a period not to exceed ... blah blah blah.... Do you wish to consent at this time...."
The guy is DRUNK, and I have to read him this LEAGALESE.

[Cow Poke]

....You mark the time down, and sit there and watch them for the minimum amount of time (what is it now, 15 or 20 minutes....can't remember, .....

I forgot all about that! Yes, I used to have fun just sitting there not saying anything, and it would make them nervous, and they would sometimes just begin to talk out of nervousness. I actually had one guy tell us about some stolen goods he had taken to a pawn shop, and another guy volunteer that he had a trunk full of marijuana that he was glad we didn't find....

I forgot all about that "sit and observe" thing.

Oh, and one of my favorites was where we had one guy under arrest, but he had a buddy with him - drunk out of his gourd - who was NOT under arrest, but we were waiting for somebody to come pick him up. The guy under arrest started his political speech about how he is a personal friend of the mayor, and you guys have made a terrible mistake... his buddy began to play an imaginary piccolo - Yankee Doodle - and egg him on... we were nearly in hysterics laughing.

[myth]

The DA presented a picture from a video THEY have from another angle. I don't even know if they've released that video, but the still from the camera video is in the link I posted with the DA discussing the charges. But those ARE the facts as presented by that DA. Are you going to propose they just made it up?

Still images don't show motion, which is what is needed to see if a kick was done. So why haven't they released the video clip of that, and instead a still image? Because they've parsed it every which way they can and they have some angle that looks kinda-sorta like a kick and that gives them another explosive thing to allege. It helps to justify the charges being brought before the DA has even seen the case file. I've watched the video that I have over and over, and I just don't see an officer cocking his leg back for a kick at all. I've posted the video, the relevant portion is less than 2 minutes long (start about 41 minutes in). Feel free to watch it yourself and tell me the timestamp during which you think the kick happened.

Also, the DA apparently charged the officers with some charge about not rending timely aid? Looks to me like they're rendering aid pretty soon after the shoot. What is it, pray tell, that you imagine they're doing around minute 44 while kneeling over him and examining him? So yes, I don't have any problem believing that a politically motivated DA who charged without even receiving the file (and by the way, didn't even tell the GBI he was doing a press conference beforehand), and has also laid multiple outlandish charges including murder (seriously, it's Freddie Gray overcharging all over again) would make some stupid thing like this up. As a side note, I didn't notice the "I got him" phrase either....but any cop knows that can have multiple meanings: 1) I'm providing lethal cover, you handcuff, 2) I'll handle cuffing, 3) I hit him (notification to advise not to continue shooting, and also to alert to injury status, or any number of other things. What a crock of horse manure.

[myth]

The DA presented a picture from a video THEY have from another angle. I don't even know if they've released that video, but the still from the camera video is in the link I posted with the DA discussing the charges. But those ARE the facts as presented by that DA.

Are you going to propose they just made it up?

'outright fabrications'?

'slobbering idiot'? - are you sure you didn't just want to say 'monkey' or 'chimpanzee'? I mean, why try to even pretend at this point?




Disgusting.

I'm sorry, is the DA African American? I haven't watched the video conference, only a print article about it. But if I had known he was African American, I would have been sure not to speak ill of him, since that's clearly a one-way ticket to being called a racist by some ignorant liberal who can't separate their own thoughts from the groupthink.

Also, still waiting on a substantive response to what I've said. Love the liberal "shout at them that they're racist and then move on" tactic. Sidesteps the whole argument beautifully.

But while we're falsely accusing each other of racism, why is it you're implying that a person must be black to be an idiot? Please explain, I'm all ears.

[JimL]

Still images don't show motion, which is what is needed to see if a kick was done. So why haven't they released the video clip of that, and instead a still image? Because they've parsed it every which way they can and they have some angle that looks kinda-sorta like a kick and that gives them another explosive thing to allege. It helps to justify the charges being brought before the DA has even seen the case file. I've watched the video that I have over and over, and I just don't see an officer cocking his leg back for a kick at all. I've posted the video, the relevant portion is less than 2 minutes long (start about 41 minutes in). Feel free to watch it yourself and tell me the timestamp during which you think the kick happened.

Also, the DA apparently charged the officers with some charge about not rending timely aid? Looks to me like they're rendering aid pretty soon after the shoot. What is it, pray tell, that you imagine they're doing around minute 44 while kneeling over him and examining him? So yes, I don't have any problem believing that a politically motivated DA who charged without even receiving the file (and by the way, didn't even tell the GBI he was doing a press conference beforehand), and has also laid multiple outlandish charges including murder (seriously, it's Freddie Gray overcharging all over again) would make some stupid thing like this up. As a side note, I didn't notice the "I got him" phrase either....but any cop knows that can have multiple meanings: 1) I'm providing lethal cover, you handcuff, 2) I'll handle cuffing, 3) I hit him (notification to advise not to continue shooting, and also to alert to injury status, or any number of other things. What a crock of horse manure.

It doesn't take an ex cop to recognize a murder when they see one, myth. The guy was running away and the cop shot him twice in the back. The guy wasn't running towards the cop, he was running away from the cop. As the DA pointed out, it is illegal for a cop to even fire a taser at a suspect who is running away, so it's obviously illegal to shoot a gun at a suspect when he is running away unless the cop has good reason to believe that the suspect is a danger to him or to others. He can't be a danger to the cop if he is running away from him. Did you know that the cop also, with a third shot hit a parked car, with three people sitting inside of it. But the plain fact is that the guy was running away, the police had all his information, and they knew, because they had already frisked him, that other than the taser, he wasn't armed. Trying to justify what that cop did is just ridiculous. The guy should have complied, no doubt, but you don't murder a man for trying to escape over a minor crime.

[DesertBerean]

Can the DA decide later to back off on the charges? (Honestly I think he is nuts doing this to begin with)

[myth]

It doesn't take an ex cop to recognize a murder when they see one, myth. The guy was running away and the cop shot him twice in the back. The guy wasn't running towards the cop, he was running away from the cop. As the DA pointed out, it is illegal for a cop to even fire a taser at a suspect who is running away, so it's obviously illegal to shoot a gun at a suspect when he is running away unless the cop has good reason to believe that the suspect is a danger to him or to others. He can't be a danger to the cop if he is running away from him. Did you know that the cop also, with a third shot hit a parked car, with three people sitting inside of it. But the plain fact is that the guy was running away, the police had all his information, and they knew, because they had already frisked him, that other than the taser, he wasn't armed. Trying to justify what that cop did is just ridiculous. The guy should have complied, no doubt, but you don't murder a man for trying to escape over a minor crime.

But it apparently takes someone who is currently a cop to recognize a lawful use of deadly force when he sees it. You can't even muster up a decent argument for your allegation, and I've launched a robust defense of my point of view.

Well, it sure can be legal taze people who are running away here. I'd like to see the statute in Georgia that makes this illegal, as it seems oddly specific.

Secondly, in my state and others, under the right circumstances it is perfectly legal for a police officer to shoot someone in order to prevent their escape. You may not agree with that or like it, but it's true.

Third, the officer was clearly responding to the presentation (and then use) of the tazer against him when he shot Brooks. He's not a superhuman. When he saw the tazer and decided to shoot, there was very little time (fractions of a second) for his brain to register that the tazer had been fired and then instruct his arms/fingers to stop what they were doing. I doubt many human beings have the reflexes and rapid cognition to be that rapid under such stress (which, by the way, is known to have all sorts of mental impacts).

You have yet to comment on the points I made to one of your last posts. Saying "it's murder, it's murder" over and over again does not make it so. Get off your rear end and explain how that's so. Respond to what I've said, present your evidence of mens rea, and explain in a logical manner how criminal intent was formed. You're gonna need to explain how those were present to allege murder. So DO IT, or shut your mouth about this being a murder and admit that I'm right and you're wrong.

[myth]

It doesn't take an ex cop to recognize a murder when they see one, myth. The guy was running away and the cop shot him twice in the back. The guy wasn't running towards the cop, he was running away from the cop. As the DA pointed out, it is illegal for a cop to even fire a taser at a suspect who is running away, so it's obviously illegal to shoot a gun at a suspect when he is running away unless the cop has good reason to believe that the suspect is a danger to him or to others. He can't be a danger to the cop if he is running away from him. Did you know that the cop also, with a third shot hit a parked car, with three people sitting inside of it. But the plain fact is that the guy was running away, the police had all his information, and they knew, because they had already frisked him, that other than the taser, he wasn't armed. Trying to justify what that cop did is just ridiculous. The guy should have complied, no doubt, but you don't murder a man for trying to escape over a minor crime.

While you're describing how this is murder, why don't you also explain how Brooks "passed" the sobriety tests, since you made that claim and I debunked your allegation.

[myth]

Can the DA decide later to back off on the charges? (Honestly I think he is nuts doing this to begin with)

Sure, but he'll look silly. Of course, it's totally happened before: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/cr...727-story.html

[Mountain Man]

The guy was running away and the cop shot him twice in the back.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that as he was running away, he turned and pointed a weapon at the officer?

[JimL]

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that as he was running away, he turned and pointed a weapon at the officer?

I don't ignore it at all, it's just a point that you people seem to be misinformed about, or are misinforming, about. The officer was chasing Brooks, Brooks turned and fired the taser. He was way out of range of the officer which the officer could see for himself when the taser was fired. Brooks then kept running away from the officer, and it was at that point, after Brooks had fired the taser and kept running away, that the officer took out his gun and shot Brooks twice in the back. The officer knew it was a taser, he knew he was out of range even from a taser, he knew Brooks didn't have a gun, they had already frisked him, and he shot Brooks in the back as he was running away. The only way Brooks could have been considered a threat is if he was coming at the officer, not running away from him. He was intentionally shot in the back while running away, he was murdered.