Rayshard Brooks

Grunt

New member
Drunk and sleeping in the drive through lane at Wendy's.

Police arrive and administer a field sobriety test and have him blow the numbers.

It comes back as a 0.108, one drink...yeah.

They go to take him into custody and the fight is on.

He breaks free after taking a Taser from one officer.

He runs, turns and fires the Taser at an officer he had just punched in the face.

He's shot...as he should have been.

The Leftist agitators burn the Wendy's. The police chief quits. One officer is fired, one on suspension.

A time is coming where any officer that wants to keep his job will not respond to ANY incident involving a black person. The police can't win.

What I wrote above, what I saw on the video was a clean shoot. The racist Government is going to hang at least one officer out to dry. No due process, no investigation.

Hell, Soros has agitators protesting in South Korea. How many blacks in South Korea other than those in the US Military? Why are people in South Korea protesting something that happened half a world away?

George Soros hates this country. He has vowed to take it down. He's using useful idiots to further his plans. George Soros doesn't care about Black Lives. George Soros wants one thing. The United States of America destroyed.

Soon law enforcement will be so hindered in doing their job, either by dictate or fear, that the animals will be running wild. God Help Us All.
 
A taser is non-lethal. Since when was it lawful to use lethal force against non-lethal force on someone who's trying to flee?

Was he driving drunk? Yes. Did he resist arrest? Yes. Did he assault a peace officer? Yes. Did he steal a non-lethal weapon from a peace officer? Yes. Does that mean shooting him to death was legally justified, or excusable? No.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't low life, but if a citizen wouldn't be justified in a shooting like that, I can't seem how a police officer would be.
 

Grunt

New member
That's funny. Just last week several police officers were charged with use of deadly force for using Tasers against people.

A Taser is LESS Lethal. The police work under a different set of rules than civilians. This shooting was justified and inline with the training for most police departments.
 

edwardware

New member
The Taser is a weapon, and given its potential to incapacitate, it's a deadly weapon.
I'm not saying the guy wasn't low life, but if a citizen wouldn't be justified in a shooting like that. . .
I would not hesitate to shoot someone who attacked me with a Taser. The attempt to incapacitate is clearly a deadly threat.

I really can't figure out why sane people want to afford to criminals the expectation that they should survive a fight with the police. Clearly it is good and necessary that the police use every safe (for them) alternative to deadly force, but if a person chooses to start that fight, grab that Taser, and threaten that cop with it, I think society's obligation to gently suffer assholes is more than met. Given the cop's actions, and the criminal's actions, his life is forfeit until he is no longer a threat.

Note, I don't deny that there's ever a reason to resist the government. . . we're here because our ancestors did, and won. If it's not worth dying for, don't fight the police for it.

Edit to ad: I believe this approach is necessary because of the overwhelming cost of the alternative. We have a great example in Devi & Fryer's paper from Harvard this week; in summary the reduction in effective police presence in Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Ferguson and Riverside after the events in each place resulted an 893 additional homicides over the next two years. The effect of less policing is more crime, every time.
 
Last edited:

.44 Associate

New member
A taser is non-lethal. Since when was it lawful to use lethal force against non-lethal force on someone who's trying to flee?

Was he driving drunk? Yes. Did he resist arrest? Yes. Did he assault a peace officer? Yes. Did he steal a non-lethal weapon from a peace officer? Yes. Does that mean shooting him to death was legally justified, or excusable? No.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't low life, but if a citizen wouldn't be justified in a shooting like that, I can't seem how a police officer would be.
I believe the idea is that after tasing the cop, the bad guy could take the cop's gun and use it against him.
 
I believe the idea is that after tasing the cop, the bad guy could take the cop's gun and use it against him.
Sure. I agree that is a real possibility. But that didn't happen. What I saw was the cop draw, aim and fire, after the taser failed. The guy was shot whilst running away after the taser failed to either hit or incapacitate the cop.

Now if the guy had successfully tased the cop and was approaching him again, I could absolutely see the other officer being justified in shooting. But the way it actually went down just wasn't right.
 
The Taser is a weapon, and given its potential to incapacitate, it's a deadly weapon.

I would not hesitate to shoot someone who attacked me with a Taser. The attempt to incapacitate is clearly a deadly threat.
Incapacitation isn't deadly. What comes after it may be, but that would be a separate action. There are a lot of things an attacker could do to a person that would reduce their ability to defend themselves and make the vulnerable. Like pepper spray in the face. Is that a deadly weapon now too?

You shooting someone that attacked you with a taser, could be justified, given the right circumstances. If they pointed it at you and you drew and fired, (particularly if there wasn't an armed police officer right behind you) I imagine that would be justifiable in court. To be alone and incapacitated would me your attacker could do anything they wanted to you, including kill you.

But if they fired it at you and it failed to work, you couldn't legally gun them down as they ran away. I hope you can see the difference.
 

edwardware

New member
Incapacitation isn't deadly. What comes after it may be. . .
We call this an own goal.

From the comfort of your armchair, it all makes perfect sense. Both officers should have waited to see if he was successful at incapacitating one of them, just to make sure he had a sporting chance at winning the fight he started.

He started a fight with the police, armed himself with one of their weapons, and then died. I can't find anything wrong with that shooting, and I would expect to be treated the same way if I did the same thing. More importantly, I don't want to live in a society that demands that criminals be given a fair chance to win a fight with the police.
 
We call this an own goal.

From the comfort of your armchair, it all makes perfect sense. Both officers should have waited to see if he was successful at incapacitating one of them, just to make sure he had a sporting chance at winning the fight he started.

He started a fight with the police, armed himself with one of their weapons, and then died. I can't find anything wrong with that shooting, and I would expect to be treated the same way if I did the same thing. More importantly, I don't want to live in a society that demands that criminals be given a fair chance to win a fight with the police.
What was wrong with the shooting was that by the time the officer got his gun out of it's holster, and up to aim, the guy had run a significant distance, was still running and was not a threat to the officer.

So no, not an own goal. And as far as armchair quarterbacking goes, if I'm guilty, so are you. There's significant reason to doubt it was justified. It should go to court.
 

Ed Ames

Member
The officer had everything needed to affect an arrest at a later time. They had the deceased’s car, ID, knew who he was and where he lived. There was no compelling need to chase and arrest him right then and there.

Tasers have a limited effective range, about 35 feet. The victim in this case ran more than 35 feet before attempting to discharge the Taser. Had the officer simply stood in place knowing that they had everything they needed to affect a later arrest, he would have been in no danger.

How many cartridges does that Taser hold? The x26p is still the most common taser and was issued by the APD. It’s a single shot model. Has APD moved to one of the 2-shot models? Unless this particular Taser was a 2-shot, the officer knew it was no longer a danger the second the shot missed. Even if it was a 2-shot, they have a limited effective range (maybe 35 feet max) and the victim was at or beyond that range when shot.

Yet the officer gave chase, and we see in the video that the officer was already transitioning from Taser to firearm before the victim discharged the taser.

Police regularly argue in court that Tasers are not lethal force. So which is it? If we accept the police argument that it isn’t lethal, then the aggressor had no grounds to escalate...yet he gave chase, transitioned to lethal force, and shot the victim who was attempting to flee and to use non-lethal force to defend himself. The aggressor had many opportunities to end the conflict non-violently, but he instead chose to chase down and murder his victim.
 
Last edited:

Grunt

New member
If Rayshard had obeyed the officers he would be alive right now, most likely in jail but he would be alive. This is the case in almost every one of these incidents. I really wonder why one group of people seem so resistant to obeying the police and commuting so much crime.

Perhaps it's not a problem we can solve. It seems to me that if the particular group of people want this to stop they need to address why it happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser The Taser is LESS Lethal. I've never seen it referred to as non-lethal by anyone who knows anything about them.

I'm sure the officer's in this indecent knew Rayshard's record. He is/was a bad guy. Bad guys are going to get treated a bit differently than good guys.

The ONLY person to blame for Rayshard's death is Rayshard. He made the bad choices here. I've talked to a LEO friend. They were taught that if your taser is taken away from you by a suspect you can respond with deadly force. Period. Stop. End of story.

I
 

Ed Ames

Member
So the officer in question has priors as well, including being implicated in covering up a shooting. If we are judging by the participants’ records instead of the documented events, that makes him a bad guy too.

We are left with two bad guys, one of whom tried to run away from a confrontation with the other.

Are you really going to say that running away from a confrontation justifies killing? So if someone confronted you and you ran away they would be justified in killing you because you tried to escape?

The aggressor in this situation could have ended the fight by simply stopping. He would have been in zero risk, the victim could have been arrested later. There was no imminent threat except that caused by the aggressor.
 

Ed Ames

Member
Running away. Being chased. No, that doesn’t fit the objective facts. If you said he was terrified and fleeing in fear that would fit the observed facts.

The cop could have simply stopped running. Let officer Motorola handle it. But he was being aggressive, giving chase even though it exposed him and others to risk of harm.
 

Grunt

New member
Running away. Being chased. No, that doesn’t fit the objective facts. If you said he was terrified and fleeing in fear that would fit the observed facts.

The cop could have simply stopped running. Let officer Motorola handle it. But he was being aggressive, giving chase even though it exposed him and others to risk of harm.
What was he in fear of? Was he in fear when he fought the police? Did he think they were going to take him down to the river and throw him in? Of did he not want to go back to prison? If he feared going back to prison then just maybe he shouldn't have been drinking and driving.

He made bad choices. A whole series of them.

Sympathy is found between shit and syphilis in the dictionary. I don't have sympathy for people go through their life making bad choices then bitch about it or complain because it bites them in the ass.

You can't or won't admit that Rayshard was the aggressor, why is that??
 

Ed Ames

Member
Doesn’t matter why he was in fear. People panic and it isn’t an excuse to murder them. You can be as proudly unsympathetic as you like. I don’t have much sympathy for any of the people involved myself. But sympathy doesn’t matter.

But: The guy obviously had good reason to be afraid...the cop he was dealing with wound up shooting him, and if there hadn’t been video from a 3rd party it would never have been noticed.

As for can’t or won’t: let’s flip it around. You can’t or won’t admit that someone who chased down a person who was running away, deliberately putting himself within reach of a less-lethal weapon, when he could simply have called for backup, driven to the guy’s home, and picked him up there...chased down and shot that person in the back...is an aggressor. Why not? It was objectively an aggressive approach to an otherwise humdrum situation.
 

Grunt

New member
He should have been afraid the sky was falling.

You can't/won't answer the question. What did he have to be afraid of? Just answer that question, not with hypothetical, a real answer.

You can't/won't answer who the aggressor was. Here's a hit. It's the person who starts the fight. Once you start the fight you can't use fear as an excuse for anything that happens after.

So. What did he have to fear before he started resisting arrest?

Have you ever been arrested? I think that's pretty germane to the discussion.
 
You can't/won't answer the question. What did he have to be afraid of? Just answer that question, not with hypothetical, a real answer.
Getting arrested, charged, not being able to make bail, getting convicted and imprisoned, and losing everything he had besides his life.

That's why he was afraid. And I'm sure you're going to reply with something like "well he shouldn't have been driving drunk." But saying that doesn't turn back time and make him not afraid. You asked why, and that's why.
 

Ed Ames

Member
He should have been afraid the sky was falling.

You can't/won't answer the question. What did he have to be afraid of? Just answer that question, not with hypothetical, a real answer.
The only person with the real answer to that is dead.

You can't/won't answer who the aggressor was. Here's a hit. It's the person who starts the fight. Once you start the fight you can't use fear as an excuse for anything that happens after.
Nah, that’s not how use of force laws work. If someone sucker punches you and runs away, you cannot just shoot them in the back. The fact that they started the fight stops mattering as soon as they disengage. If you chase, you become the aggressor. The fact that they used non-lethal force is also relevant to the level of force you can use. If they sucker punch you, and you shoot them, that’s a disproportionate response

So. What did he have to fear before he started resisting arrest?
Ask him. Oh, wait, he’s still dead

Have you ever been arrested? I think that's pretty germane to the discussion.
Nah. It’s not.
 

Grunt

New member
Getting arrested, charged, not being able to make bail, getting convicted and imprisoned, and losing everything he had besides his life.

That's why he was afraid. And I'm sure you're going to reply with something like "well he shouldn't have been driving drunk." But saying that doesn't turn back time and make him not afraid. You asked why, and that's why.
Hmm....you're right. If he feared being arrested he should not have done things that would result in arrest. He had already been released from prison because of Covid. So that kind of shows he made a habit of bad choices.

You don't know that he was afraid. To me it looked like he didn't want to go back to prison. Because that's where he was headed. He'd already PUT HIMSELF THERE, if he didn't want to go back......
 
Top