Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[myth]

I have already admitted this is not the same sort of clear cut case Arbery and floyd are. But kicking the man you just shot and refusing to render aid will be very difficult acts to justify and point to abuse way beyond anything justifiable.

The DA laid out 11 clear violations.

But that said, this one, unlike Arbery or floyd, will require some patience to sort out.

I'll still continue to believe the kick is an outright lie until I see proof. I've linked video of the incident, and none of you liberal-types on here have taken me up on my REPEATED requests to tell me when exactly that kick happens. You keep making claims that you can't back up.

But let's dig further into this mythical kick, shall we? Here's the article I'm using for reference: https://abcnews.go.com/US/da-announc...ry?id=71296413

From the article:

After Brooks was shot, Rolfe "kicked Mr. Brooks while he laid on the ground, while he was there fighting for his life," Howard said. "Secondly, from the videotape, we were able to see that the other officer, Brosnan, actually stood on Mr. Brooks' shoulders while he was there struggling for his life."

Ok, so Howard says Rolfe kicked Brooks after the shooting him. He also says Brosan stood on Brooks' shoulders. I'm not sure what idiot thinks standing on anyone's shoulders makes any sense whatsoever. I've never seen that happen in my life. Probably because it's patently absurd. You don't stand on the shoulders of someone who is laying on the ground, if for no other reason than if they shift their weight slightly you'd be thrown off balance and find yourself on the ground. What a stupid thing to say. But hey, poor quality video showing an officer's feet between legs, or on both sides of his head from far away.... in the eyes of a corrupt prosecutor who wouldn't know the definition of confirmation bias if it smacked him in the face...sure, that person might think it happened. Let's move on to the next absurdity.

After Brooks was shot, medical attention wasn't provided for 2 minutes and 12 seconds, Howard said.

Right. Let's totally ignore all the scientific research and academic literature about how high stress events affects your mind, and let's demand robotic perfection from a human being....and if we don't get it, by all means let's put them in prison for the rest of their natural lives. The ignorant hatred here is disgusting.

But the timeline implied here is what I'm actually interested in. So Howard's fictional narrative is basically that Rofle shot Brooks, then walked over and kicked him as he lay bleeding on the ground and Brosan stood on his shoulders (seriously, what is that even supposed to accomplish? Oooohhhh, I want to hurt you so badly I'm gonna STAND ON YOU? what a load of crap). Then, about 2 minutes after they were viciously kicking him like the jack-booted racist thugs that Howard thinks they are, they suddenly had a change of heart and decided to render first aid? When you're amped up on an adrenaline dump your emotions don't change THAT rapidly -- I'm speaking from personal experience here. 17 minutes after the shooting, Rofle even explains to a police supervisor that he is ok, but he still has the adrenaline pumping. It takes a long time to come down off that adrenaline dump. Keep keep in mind, you can hear the officers providing first aid in the background of the video I linked (I'll link it again here, since you clearly haven't watched it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O2IReqaYqw&t=2671s) saying things like "Mr. Brooks, keep breathing".

But hey, if you're intent on seeing murderous and racist motivations, I totally expect that you'd be grasping at straws. Feel free to respond to this post, but given that you haven't responded in a meaningful way to any of other posts, I'm not holding my breath that you or JimL will have any sort of rational argument to make. But maybe you'll surprise me and we can have a real debate, instead of this one-sided argument where I clearly win and you liberals can't seem to do anything but repeat your original statements (which is a terrible argumentative strategy, even drunks and children can do that).

[oxmixmudd]

Again, can you explain why the DA released a single frame from what he claims is a video of the officer kicking the man? Why wouldn't he release the video or even a sequence of images?

I mean doesn't this raise a red flag in your mind?

Not really. The single frame shows the officer in a posture that is consistent with kicking, and it is not unusual for critical evidence not to be made public till the trial.

And I will reject until and unless proven otherwise any conclusions drawn that arise from yet another conspiratorial paranoid mindset.

[myth]

I don't know the laws in Georgia either. But my suggestion about an impound meant taking the vehicle to an impound yard. As I understand, the vehicle was a rental car so perhaps the company should have been notified to collect it.

That would be an option, sure. But once again, you're whole strategy is to help the offender avoid criminal charges, and their whole job is pursue criminal charges.

Is it? Under every circumstance? Then warnings should never be given out. And again, the cops did not witness Brooks actually driving.

Warnings are up to officer discretion. They could have warned him, sure. That's merely one of two perfectly valid options that are both moral, ethical, and legal. You're literally criticizing them for pursuing one of those options, which is something that is also their primary job function.

I'll be clear here that I'm going out on a limb and assuming that Georigan law is similar to my state's law (concerning driving and road laws, many times these assumptions are valid because legislatures are incentived by federal highway funding to craft laws which conform to federal standards). Like CP said earlier, in many states you don't have to be driving on a roadway for it to meet the elements of the crime for DWI. In mine, it's DWI if you're driving in a public vehicular area (parking lot). It is ALSO DWI if you are merely in control of a vehicle that is energized. So in my state, you are violating the driving while impaired law if you are drunk and sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the engine running in a public parking lot.

Mr. Brooks was clearly doing this, so I don't see any problem with their development of probable cause for arrest. I've literally arrested people for doing the same thing (seriously, drunks fall asleep in drive-thru lines quite frequently), and sometimes I had them call a ride. The differences in my decision had to do with how drunk they were, if I could prove how long they had been in the vehicle in the parking lot (extrapolation of BAC from time of arrest towards when they actually were operating it on the roadway, thus making a clearer case for the danger to the public when the defendant was operating the vehicle on the road), and if I could reach a responsible party that would actually care for the individual. There's a lot of factors that play into those decisions.

[myth]

Not really. The single frame shows the officer in a posture that is consistent with kicking, and it is not unusual for critical evidence not to be made public till the trial.

And I will reject until and unless proven otherwise any conclusions drawn that arise from yet another conspiratorial paranoid mindset.

And you'll continue to believe the DA because he says something you WANT to believe, even though what the DA has said is in CLEAR CONTRADICTION to the video evidence that has been made public. Of course, just being a sensible liberal. Loyal to the cause.

[oxmixmudd]

And you'll continue to believe the DA because he says something you WANT to believe, even though what the DA has said is in CLEAR CONTRADICTION to the video evidence that has been made public. Of course, just being a sensible liberal. Loyal to the cause.

Your attempts to divine my motives are hampered by the fact your prognostications are driven by what appears to be a crazed, paranoid mindset.

As for what I believe, I believe the evidence, and I dont give stock to the idea anything was manufactured or lied about. That would involve criminal action on the part of the DA. And I have no reason to believe a DA would lie about the evidence that exists against this officer. So to the extent your case is based on the assumotion the DA actually is lying I will give it not an ounce of credibility until and unless some factual evidence surfaces that lends credibility to that conclusion.

[rogue06]

An epidemic of "Blue Flu" has struck the Atlanta police. As of this morning the city won't say how many police officers are calling in sick and staying home but they wanted to assure the public that they still have enough to respond to 911 calls.

Meanwhile the counties surrounding Atlanta are beginning to court disgruntled officers urging them to give the city a well deserved single finger salute and come work there. Coweta County seems to have the most aggressive campaign but I'd be willing to bet other counties will soon be following suit.

It continues for the third day:

The headline seeks to minimize the severity using "some" to imply a minority or small number but the first sentence gives the game away

A majority of Atlanta police officers

[Darth Ovious]

It continues for the third day:

The headline seeks to minimize the severity using "some" to imply a minority or small number but the first sentence gives the game away

A majority of Atlanta police officers

For those trying to access from Europe here is a link to the archive (probably about time I think of getting a VPN )

https://web.archive.org/save/https:/...yshard-brooks/

[Leonhard]

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.

That sounds really gross.

[Cow Poke]

Seeing what you've seen, why not?

Because:
A) I wasn't there
2) I don't know what all happened "off camera"
C) I haven't really studied the situation all that much
D) I like to have all the facts before coming to a conclusion.

Even if the facts don't support any predetermined narrative.

[Ronson]

That would be an option, sure. But once again, you're whole strategy is to help the offender avoid criminal charges, and their whole job is pursue criminal charges.

Not the police - their job is to maintain order. The District Attorney is responsible for pursuing criminal charges.

And I'm not trying to help the "offender" here but viewing the situation as one that requires an arrest or not. Unless there a clear violation, some disturbance or violence taking place, then I would opt not to arrest someone.

Warnings are up to officer discretion. They could have warned him, sure. That's merely one of two perfectly valid options that are both moral, ethical, and legal. You're literally criticizing them for pursuing one of those options, which is something that is also their primary job function.

I don't believe I criticized them here, I said I would have handled it differently. I also said I would not have charged Rolfe for anything.

I'll be clear here that I'm going out on a limb and assuming that Georigan law is similar to my state's law (concerning driving and road laws, many times these assumptions are valid because legislatures are incentived by federal highway funding to craft laws which conform to federal standards). Like CP said earlier, in many states you don't have to be driving on a roadway for it to meet the elements of the crime for DWI. In mine, it's DWI if you're driving in a public vehicular area (parking lot). It is ALSO DWI if you are merely in control of a vehicle that is energized. So in my state, you are violating the driving while impaired law if you are drunk and sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the engine running in a public parking lot.

Mr. Brooks was clearly doing this, so I don't see any problem with their development of probable cause for arrest. I've literally arrested people for doing the same thing (seriously, drunks fall asleep in drive-thru lines quite frequently), and sometimes I had them call a ride. The differences in my decision had to do with how drunk they were, if I could prove how long they had been in the vehicle in the parking lot (extrapolation of BAC from time of arrest towards when they actually were operating it on the roadway, thus making a clearer case for the danger to the public when the defendant was operating the vehicle on the road), and if I could reach a responsible party that would actually care for the individual. There's a lot of factors that play into those decisions.

Fair enough.

[Cow Poke]

The first time I came across this was back in the early 1990s, Civil Rights activist Hosea Williams was arrested for a DUI/DWI when he was found pulled off along the side of the road and asleep while the car was running. If you are in the position of operating a vehicle that is running it appears you can be charged.

"physical control of a motor vehicle". If you want to sleep it off, crawl in the back seat.

[Mountain Man]

That sounds really gross.

Not referring to the case being discussed, but suppose someone escaping would pose a significant risk to the community -- such as someone who has proven that he is not adverse to violence -- in that case, do you think it would be appropriate to use deadly force to stop him from escaping?

[myth]

That sounds really gross.

I suppose you're ok with letting a school shooter, still wielding a firearm, flee the scene of a school after he just killed 10 children, then? We shouldn't protect the community by preventing his escape by all possible means? I'll bet many other countries, including yours have some similar wording in law.

Clearly, Atlanta shooting is not directly comparable to what I've described. However, I fail to understand the mindset that the bad guy gets to decide when and how he's arrested, under all circumstances. That's not how any of this works.

[Cow Poke]

I suppose you're ok with letting a school shooter, still wielding a firearm, flee the scene of a school after he just killed 10 children, then? We shouldn't protect the community by preventing his escape by all possible means? I'll bet many other countries, including yours have some similar wording in law.

Clearly, Atlanta shooting is not directly comparable to what I've described. However, I fail to understand the mindset that the bad guy gets to decide when and how he's arrested, under all circumstances. That's not how any of this works.

So, hard question -- given what you know, would you have "shot the guy in the back"?

[myth]

Your attempts to divine my motives are hampered by the fact your prognostications are driven by what appears to be a crazed, paranoid mindset.

As for what I believe, I believe the evidence, and I dont give stock to the idea anything was manufactured or lied about. That would involve criminal action on the part of the DA. And I have no reason to believe a DA would lie about the evidence that exists against this officer. So to the extent your case is based on the assumotion the DA actually is lying I will give it not an ounce of credibility until and unless some factual evidence surfaces that lends credibility to that conclusion.

Ah, more insults from the neckbeard keyboard warrior who STILL hasn't made a substantial argument against anything I've said. I suppose you missed the part where the DA is under criminal investigation himself? Put on your big boy pants and let's debate this. Otherwise, I'm not here for the sole purpose of trading insults like you apparently are. I'm beginning to think parroting "but the DA said..." is the extent of your argumentative and critical thinking ability. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but you've been unable or unwilling to do so thus far.

This whole kick thing is really simple. I know at first blush what I'm saying sounds crazy, but I've watched the video over and over again and there's just no evidence of it. Do you have an actual rational argument for why that is? Because I've given multiple reasons to explain this fact, and they all point to a DA who is exaggerating the available evidence for political expediency (since you seem to find the more colloquial term 'lying' to be so outlandish, we'll soft-pedal the language). He also announced that the other officer agreed to testify against Rolfe, and the defense attorney promptly did a press release disputing that fact (which is really a minor detail to bother disputing. Why would they do that, if there was a recording of it and the DA was telling the truth? At trial, the defense team will be made out to be liars and that won't help them. On the other hand, if the DA is the one lying, it's best to get out in front of that right away...which is exactly what the defense team did.)

It's not as far fetched as it sounds. In the Trayvon Martin case the special prosecutor withheld several hundred pages of discover-able evidence from the defense team, and when IT guy found it on the printer and went public with the information, they promptly fired him. As far as I know, nothing happened to the special prosecutor for what was a blatant ethical violation and, arguably, a criminal offense. In my state intentionally withholding discover-able material is a felony. But hey, when you're a lawyer and friends with all the right people, including judges, it's a bit easier to get out of trouble.

I've literally seen this sort of thing first hand. Someone important gets investigated or charged with something, the evidence is very damning, and then BAM - the case disappears, they reach a plea deal without the victim knowing anything about it, whatever. These things happen, and an elected DA basically has carte blanche to do whatever he wants because it's so difficult to remove them. Ball's in your court, buddy.