They have his car though. They can impound it, look up his home address and go send officers to arrest him in the morning. I guess that may be asking the cops to think fast though, which they aren't terribly adept at.
Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement
- Thread starter JazzGal
- Start date
They have his car though. They can impound it, look up his home address and go send officers to arrest him in the morning. I guess that may be asking the cops to think fast though, which they aren't terribly adept at.
So a police officer in Las Vegas was shot in the head at a protest for George Floyd 10 days ago and is now paralyzed from the neck down. This isn't going to sit well. Protesting deadly violence with more deadly violence will only lead to more violence. Cooler heads need to prevail here.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-officer-shot-las-vegas-protest-paralyzed-71246536
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-officer-shot-las-vegas-protest-paralyzed-71246536
Getting Traded
Banned
1. Was he resisting to begin with?
2. Was he driving -- he was asleep in the car. Yes, see if he can call someone to get him and issue him a ticket
3. There was no reason for police to be such assholes. He was over the limit, issue him a citation to appear in court and let that be the end of it. The handcuff **** has got to end. It escalated the situation. I know I see it on Live PD and I hate that. They handcuff people who have done nothing wrong and pose no threat -- ****ing assholes!
4. But police don't want to help people; they want to control people and put them under their thumb -- that's how many of them are, and I think their training has something to do with that.
5. I know Trump probably won't do this, but the new President needs to authorize a special commission to evaluate police training and protocols and call for reforms.
Beer
Well-Known Member
I hope not. They seem pretty committed. Someone is going to do something rash at some point.
Red
Well-Known Member
He asked the police officers if he could just walk home to his sister’s house, and leave his car in the parking lot. They could have let him walk to his sister’s, or given him a ride to her house. Issued a citation for DUI, with court appearance, given him a ride, impounded the car in the meantime. I’ve seen results like that in my town.
Last edited:
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
1. No. He passed out twice behind the wheel while the cops were there.
2. Yes. He was in line at the drive through. Passed out and was blocking other customers. He may not have been moving, but he was driving. He wasn't parked.
3. Man, did you watch the video? Both the cops and Brooks weren't assholes and treated eachother with respect and were polite. Why were the cops assholes because they were doing their jobs?
4. Police do want to control people but these guys showed up to help both this guy and the public. I don't mind drunk driving being taken seriously.
5. I agree. Judging the cops by the videos, I think they were following their training of stopping the threat by eliminating it rather than eliminating the threat by resolving it without the use of deadly force.
For sure. I'm not mad they were doing their jobs though. They followed up on a call of a guy passed out at the wheel in a running car blocking the drive through. Checked on the guy's safety and the safety of others. Spoke with him politely and assessed the situation and gave him a breathalyzer.
It's easy for us to have hindsight and suggest things should have been handled differently. I'm actually surprised how many think the officers shouldn't have been involved in the first place and aren't taking drunk driving seriously. I'm also surprised by how many aren't blaming Brooks for his actions.
I don't know, man. Maybe letting him go to his sister's was the right call, but if they did and this guy made other poor choices that endangered himself or others, the police would be responsible.
Let the guy sober up behind bars to protect him from dumb decisions that so many are brushing off like yeah, but...
Red
Well-Known Member
In the George Floyd murder, this is being announced, by the family’s attorney, as a new video showing officer Tou Thao’s interaction with the onlooker’s who are pleading with him to intervene because by then Floyd is unresponsive:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/14/cop-ignores-pleas-to-intervene-in-george-floyds-death-video/
Numerous new outlets are reporting this as new footage. But, it is not new footage at all. The complete video taken by a 17 year old girl at the scene has been available to view from the start, and includes the portion of the encounter that for some reason, is being called “new”. I noticed this last night, because I had saved the original 10+ minute video from the beginning. I just assumed most people had watched this, if they wanted to see what happened that day.
This is that complete video. I see that it has far fewer views than I would have expected by now, so maybe this complete video of the event slipped by most people. It includes the aftermath, where the black man who was most vocal in talking to the cop using his knee, followed that officer, and the others, while castigating them for what had happened:
So, if you see reports about a new Floyd video today, it's not new at all. Strangely, it was a N.Y. Post article announcing the family attorney had released this “new video”, even though it was also the N. Y. Post that posted the original video from which the excerpt being called new was taken!
https://nypost.com/2020/06/14/cop-ignores-pleas-to-intervene-in-george-floyds-death-video/
Numerous new outlets are reporting this as new footage. But, it is not new footage at all. The complete video taken by a 17 year old girl at the scene has been available to view from the start, and includes the portion of the encounter that for some reason, is being called “new”. I noticed this last night, because I had saved the original 10+ minute video from the beginning. I just assumed most people had watched this, if they wanted to see what happened that day.
This is that complete video. I see that it has far fewer views than I would have expected by now, so maybe this complete video of the event slipped by most people. It includes the aftermath, where the black man who was most vocal in talking to the cop using his knee, followed that officer, and the others, while castigating them for what had happened:
So, if you see reports about a new Floyd video today, it's not new at all. Strangely, it was a N.Y. Post article announcing the family attorney had released this “new video”, even though it was also the N. Y. Post that posted the original video from which the excerpt being called new was taken!
Last edited:
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Are you 100% sure both cops knew it was a taser? Maybe the cop, who's taser was stolen, but what about his partner? Is it not impossible to think the partner had no idea and thought it could have been a gun?
Anyone know if the cop who shot Brooks was the one with his taser stolen or the partner? If the shooting cop knew his taser were stolen, that's where I'm like - yeah, you didn't need to kill him. If it were his partner I'd be like, wish you didn't kill him but can see how you thought he was pointing a gun at you.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
That's one of the most disturbing videos I've seen. The officer was more worried about following the protocol of controlling the surrounding people than listening to them or stopping the murderer behind him. As those people fought for Lloyd's life and pleaded that officer was ****ing clueless.
Red
Well-Known Member
Yeah, many things in life are way easier in hindsight. But the cop who fired was not in imminent danger of losing his life when he shot and killed the man. And that’s why it’s being ruled a homicide. Of course he should not have struggled with the two officers. Of course he should not have grabbed a taser and ran. Of course he should not have aimed that taser(did he fire it? I’m no longer sure the answer is yes, I thought it looked like it, but rewatching I just can’t tell.). But was the cop who fired in “imminent danger”, where his life was concerned, when he killed the man? I don’t think so, and I guess prosecutors did not think so either. Yes, Brooks actions led to his death, because he could have complied and not resisted. That is still not reason to take his life over a DUI.
Last edited:
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Seriously.
What ever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?
Everyone has to know right now that the police use lethal force a lot yet people still keep doing stupid **** to get shot.
The stove is on all the time. We keep asking for the stove to get turned off because too many people are being burned but we know, it's always on. If the stove was fixed and not hot all the time it would save a lot people from getting burned. Everyone knows and complains about how dangerous the stove is - Yet somehow, people still put their hands on the stove.
The lesson to learn here is - that while the stove should be fixed so it's not always on, if you put your hand on it, you're going to get burned.
Fix the damn stove and in the meantime stop putting your hand on it.
Last edited:
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I agree, man and only the officer who fired knows if he felt his life was in danger or if he knew/thought Brooks' actions gave him the clearance to use deadly force because he could say his life was in danger.
No one knows but the officer at this point. Of course he's going to be prosecuted. I have a hard time thinking he'll be convicted because cops are protected with using deadly forcevif they fear for their life.
Red
Well-Known Member
These are reasonable questions. I heard last night, forget where, but most likely CNN, that the officer who shot and killed Brooks fired his taser at Brooks before throwing it to the ground after Brooks aimed the taser, and that officer then withdrew his pistol and shot. But, I also believe it had already been determined that Brooks was unarmed prior to the struggle that broke out between Brooks and the officers. Should be able to see if the officer who fired did in fact drop his taser to the ground just before withdrawing his gun. At any rate, your question will be answered, and it will be established if the officers knew he was unarmed prior to the wrestling match.
Red
Well-Known Member
Well, here’s the thing. The lawyer representing Brook’s family, said, that in cases he has defended in Atlanta courts, whenever the issue of tasing defendants is concerned, the Atlanta police always reply that the taser is not a lethal weapon(and yes, I know as @LogGrad98 pointed out, it has been lethal on rare occasions). So that attorney felt that fact, the Atlanta police always claiming in trials that the taser is not lethal, can be used against the Atlanta police, if they now want to say the cop thought he was in imminent danger from the taser Brooks wielded. (Although maybe a judge would not allow the fact that Atlanta police always claim “non lethal” in other trials, to be admitted in this trial). And, if they are ruling it a homicide, which they are, they have to have concluded the officer’s life was not in imminent danger. Obviously, the police union will feel otherwise, and if there is a trial, the officer’s testimony is bound to emphasize fear for his life, what choice does he have but to go that route when giving his side of the event?
And the link I left in comment #1401 is good in showing how use of force policies by some departments among the 100 largest police departments in the country can reduce these types of outcomes without increasing fatalities or injuries to officers...
Red
Well-Known Member
After Brooks aims, and perhaps discharges, the taser toward the officer, Brooks turns, has his back to the officer, and is still running away. I believe I am always going to not understand how, at that moment, the cop’s life is in imminent danger. And if his life is not in imminent danger, I do not understand how this is justifiable. At THAT exact point, how is that officer in fear for his life?
Except, they don't need to be locked up, and locking them up does as much harm as good. The practice only exists to make us feel better, not to make things safer.
But what if he tries to overthrow Tazmania by hijacking a NASA Blackbird aircraft after they let him go? You ever think about that?
Most of those guys get out on bail anyhow. It's not like an arrest permanently locks them away.
On the other hand, sober molestors don't act as stupidly as drunk people over being arrested, and are less likely to be gunned down, if that matters to you.
To be clear, you do understand "don't arrest" is different from "don't prosecute", right?
Or, you can make that standard policy, and they don't have to think about it at all.