Why do people say Rayshard Brooks was shot in the back?

amother

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 1:14 pm

I realize that he was shot in the back.

I keep seeing seemingly intelligent people on CNN and MSNBC repeating saying over and over again that the police officer shot this man in the back.

They never include the context which was that brooks had his head turned and was facing the cops as he was firing their stolen taser at them.
This seems like it might be an important part of the story about him getting shot in the back.

Maybe I'm not getting it. Can someone please give me an explanation of what his defenders mean when they say this? The first time I heard it I thought surely someone will correct the person saying it. Instead, it seems like the go to argument.

Am I missing something???

Motherhood

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 1:17 pm

Maybe to point out that he wasn’t facing them as he was being shot and didn’t see them pointing the gun at him?

amother

Periwinkle

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 1:24 pm

I didn't write this, but I encourage people to read this post from another website. I think it expresses what "defenders" are feeling. I put that in quotes because no one is defending Mr. Brooks's actions. He should certainly have been arrested. But he didn't deserve to die.

Quote:

Officers have a right to respond to threats — in kind. Or perhaps slight escalation. If someone punches a cop, the response is to punch back, or perhaps use a baton or taser. Not to kill someone.

This person broke the law. On several accounts. But police aren’t employed to be judge, jury, or executioner. Their job is to subdue and/or obtain [....]

But there are two critical points in this situation that would suggest to me that this person didn’t deserve to be killed: each cop was supported by a partner (though seemingly poorly), and the suspect was running away.

Punching a cop isn’t punishable by death. Neither is resisting arrest. Neither is being drunk. Neither is, I believe, stealing a taser. Neither are all of those things combined. Add in the fact that the suspect was fleeing, and it adds up to a lot of: suspect should be in jail, but should be alive.

The police had several other options. They could have continued subduing the suspect. He had a taser, and I think had already discharged it and missed. But even if he hadn’t, it’s only good for one shot. I assume the other cop had a taser, a baton, or even just defense training to subdue him.

But let’s disregard that option. The second would have been to pursue the suspect, even keeping a distance, while radioing for backup. Response time in general isn’t fast. But response time to “officers accosted” or “suspect fleeing” is sure to be faster. So pursue him, keeping a distance, and wait for backup.

The guy had a taser. And was drunk. Chasing a drunk person is pretty easy. I can tell you from my time in college (tongue in cheek). Letting him go would not have likely resulted in any threat to society at large. Not like there’d have been a headline reading “Taser rampage: 14 killed.” I had a friend taser me once. It sucks. But it doesn’t life-ending suck.

If the officers really felt so afraid for their lives in regard to either furthering confrontation or pursuing the suspect that they decided to shoot him in the back, maybe they...shouldn’t be police officers? [...]
Like, if you can’t handle that situation without deciding to take a human life, then what are citizens even paying you to do? If your entire ability to “protect and serve” starts and ends with a gun, then what are your broader skills that require the salary and asked-for respect? Could two CrossFit nerds not have done a better job at wrestling this guy to the ground and subduing him?

That all might be exaggeration, but I’m turning on this subject completely. This is EXACTLY the type of scenario that, years ago, I would have responded with “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” or “obey the officer and death would have been avoided.” But not anymore. I can’t help but have the sinking feeling that, even though this guy was a donkey and deserved arrest and a future trial for multiple transgressions, he should still be alive.

If this guy had straddled one of the officers while the other was disorientated and was beating the pinned officer’s face with a rock or baton? Ok, sure. If he had stolen a gun instead of a taser? Ok. Maybe even if he had been charging towards the cops instead of running away? Ok.

But this? Nah man. I can’t shake the feeling that this is not how such situations should be addressed.

notshanarishona

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 1:26 pm

Because everyone wants to pander to the African American community to stop the rioting. I really don’t believe the officers should be charged but I think it may be the only way to help restore piece in Atlanta and other communities where rioting is still going on.

amother

Mistyrose

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 1:48 pm

notshanarishona wrote:

What's your bright line for when an officer should be charged after they kill someone?

(I am personally interested in reading more about why there was no Grand Jury).

PinkFridge

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 3:39 pm

Quote:

Officers have a right to respond to threats — in kind. Or perhaps slight escalation. If someone punches a cop, the response is to punch back, or perhaps use a baton or taser. Not to kill someone

I like how it's respectably written. But I think there's one more thing he could say: yes, it's quite possible that he could have been subdued, etc. But the policemen still don't deserve the maximum punishment that might be dealt out. It doesn't seem right for them to be punished as severely as the Floyd policemen.

ETA: because of how this copies, I want to make clear that amother is above the box, I'm below.

Last edited by PinkFridge on Thu, Jun 18 2020, 3:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

notshanarishona

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 3:50 pm

amother [ Mistyrose ] wrote:

What's your bright line for when an officer should be charged after they kill someone?

(I am personally interested in reading more about why there was no Grand Jury).

I think once a suspect tries to harm an officer, with any type of weapon, then the officer is allowed to do whatever is needed in self defense without having to face criminal charges. If its just a fist fight then the officer should use a taser but in a case like this where that thug stole their taser and had already wrestled with them I think he was fully responsible for whatever happened to him. Would it have been great if he could have just been shot in the leg and immobilized so he could go through surgery and jail on the taxpayers dime , yes!People shouldn’t be killed for hurting police officers but I definitely wont shed tears over him.

amother

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 3:51 pm

[quote="amother [ Periwinkle ]"]I didn't write this, but I encourage people to read this post from another website. I think it expresses what "defenders" are feeling. I put that in quotes because no one is defending Mr. Brooks's actions. He should certainly have been arrested. But he didn't deserve to die.

[quote]
Officers have a right to respond to threats — in kind. Or perhaps slight escalation. If someone punches a cop, the response is to punch back, or perhaps use a baton or taser. Not to kill someone.

This person broke the law. On several accounts. But police aren’t employed to be judge, jury, or executioner. Their job is to subdue and/or obtain [....]

But there are two critical points in this situation that would suggest to me that this person didn’t deserve to be killed: each cop was supported by a partner (though seemingly poorly), and the suspect was running away.

Punching a cop isn’t punishable by death. Neither is resisting arrest. Neither is being drunk. Neither is, I believe, stealing a taser. Neither are all of those things combined. Add in the fact that the suspect was fleeing, and it adds up to a lot of: suspect should be in jail, but should be alive.

This is an example of exactly what I'm talking about. This states that the suspect didn't deserve to die for punching a cop, resisting arrest, being drunk, or stealing a taser.

Everyone agrees to this. I repeat EVERYONE AGREES.

The man was shot because HE TURNED AND AND FIRED A TASER AT THE POLICE OFFICER. This is the only reason he was shot. Had it hit the officer in the face it could have permanently blinded him. This by the way, will be the defense at trial and will likely lead to an acquittal. (and rioting) He was not shot for ANY of the reasons listed above.

If you want to argue that he still didn't deserve to be shot, that's fine. But you're doing exactly what CNN does and shifting the argument to "did he deserve to be shot for being drunk or resisting arrest"? Of course not, and nobody would say otherwise.

It reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial. The defense had the seemingly insurmountable task of defending a person who was so obviously guilty. Their strategy was distraction. It worked perfectly. Instead of focusing on the evidence in the case -which is the ONLY thing the jury should be focused on-, the defense shifted the argument to racism, cops are racist, a certain cop used the N word 20 years ago, black people can't get a fair shake with the cops, ect.

That seems to be what's happening now. Certain media outlets are trying to win the argument and sway public opinion by changing what we're arguing about. Instead of the question being:

Is it justified to shoot a fleeing suspect who turns and fires a taser at pursuing officers.....to.....

Is it Justified to shoot a suspect because he's drunk, resisting arrest, or running away?

notshanarishona

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 3:58 pm

https://nypost.com/2020/06/18/...../amp/

Sebastian

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 4:06 pm

You know Brooks knocked 1 of the officers out with the taser and the said cop has a cobcussion. And the cop who killed him fired in the air first to try to get him to stop

PinkFridge

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 4:56 pm

Sebastian wrote:

You know Brooks knocked 1 of the officers out with the taser and the said cop has a cobcussion. And the cop who killed him fired in the air first to try to get him to stop

If this is so, particularly if it's on video, it should be publicized. Not that I'm doubting you, it's just incredible that after a week this isn't being discussed.

notshanarishona

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 5:21 pm

Attorney says cop suffered concussion in Brooks shooting
An attorney for Devin Brosnan, one of the officers involved in the Rayshard Brooks shooting at a Wendy's in Atlanta, tells CNN's Chris Cuomo that Brosnan suffered a number of injuries during the incident, including a concussion. Brosnan was placed on administrative duty following Brooks' death.
And

https://www.politicopathy.com/.....ooks/

amother

Khaki

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 5:46 pm

no wonder cops are leaving the force in droves

good luck getting help when we need it

amother

Mistyrose

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 5:55 pm

notshanarishona wrote:

I've noted your opinion changed from the beginning of this post to the end.

amother

Blonde

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 6:09 pm

notshanarishona wrote:

I agree. It's crazy that this cop is being charged for murder and might get a life sentence. He shouldn't even be arrested. Cops are supposed to be allowed to defend themselves.

DrMom

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 6:40 pm

I saw the full footage and it seems like those two cops went out of their way not to harm the suspect, and only responded with deadly force when the suspect threatened them.

They chased him, he ran away; they tried wrestling him to the ground, he shook them off. Round and around they went, but the cops did not use deadly force.

Then he grabbed their taser and pointed it at them, and that's when they shot him.

I do not think these cops should be arrested at all.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=.....utube

Last edited by DrMom on Thu, Jun 18 2020, 6:47 pm; edited 2 times in total

DrMom

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 6:41 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

If this is so, particularly if it's on video, it should be publicized. Not that I'm doubting you, it's just incredible that after a week this isn't being discussed.

And why do you think that might be?

amother

Khaki

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 6:58 pm

Exactly so Dr. Mom exactly so.

Yeah its a real mystery....not.

amother

Mistyrose

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 6:59 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

I agree. It's crazy that this cop is being charged for murder and might get a life sentence. He shouldn't even be arrested. Cops are supposed to be allowed to defend themselves.

Thats the question - was this truly self defense.

Generally speaking - when someone is shot in the back - the self defense angle is murky.

amother

Khaki

Thu, Jun 18 2020, 7:04 pm

Im sure an impartial jury can decide.

And if innocent then people can riot.

Like in the Rodney King trial when they burned down much of LA and many of the Korean small businesses Sad

seems like some people matter and some don't