unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's good that you would accept the verdict, though it doesn't seem you would be happy with it.
I'm not sure what you would define as not accepting the verdict, then, short of organizing a jailbreak.
What cops are doing in other jurisdictions has big picture bearing on the ongoing issue of police aggression in the country. Of course it's not something you'd care to focus on.
Of course not. Because, as we are discussing the shooting of Rayshard Brooks, what other police are doing in other jurisdiction is absolutely irrelevant. What matters in the determination of whether the shooting was reasonable are three things: what was the threat presented, what was the level of resistance, and what was the severity of the crime at issue. What Barney Fife did last week in Mayberry has nothing to do with this encounter.
"Felonious behavior" is not a specific enough to validate shooting someone.
Golly fuck, you're right. That's why I made a list for you of the bare minimum crimes Brooks committed. For your convenience, here it is again: misdemeanor (at least) obstruction, felony theft, felony robbery, felony aggravated assault, felony obstruction, and felony aggravated assault (again!). All of this goes to the totality of circumstances that are tallied when gauging the reasonableness of the officer's response to the second felony aggravated assault, assuming the second aggravated assault isn't enough on its own to justify the response (and it was enough).
To answer your "so what," I posted the video of OJ's long chase because it's a famous example of someone surviving to stand trial, nevermind people I watched it with telling the TV to just snipe him from a helicopter. Police didn't go from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye and shoot him 50 times.
And that means what, with regard to this situation? OJ was brought in alive so deadly force is always unreasonable?
Again, the football thing was supplied as an extreme anecdote, because your excuses are extremely silly. "He tased cops and gave one a concussion!" Please, if tasing and concussions were all that bad, then I'm sure police would be reluctant to pass that nonsense out to innocent bystanders. Oh wait.
Again, what actions police are taking in other encounters
doesn't mean shit when it comes to a determination of reasonableness in this scenario.
I find it difficult to blame "range training" for the police here having trouble deciding on whether to prioritize administering aid or sweep for brass. Don't you think that goes a bit beyond a drilled reflex excuse?
I think it's a plausible reason for what they did. I don't know what they claim is the reason. We'll have to wait and see.
You may have commented on "only two shootings," but that's two for two amidst many others you could have weighed on.
I "could have" done a lot of things. Again, if I'm going to be obligated to comment on every use of force incident, you're gonna have to pay me. And your "two for two" count is confusing, as I faulted the officers in the Shaver incident, even if I can understand why the jury returned the verdict it did.
You've been picky, and so far, it's been very "obey and survive" (again a regrettable state for this country considering policing in other western nations) so I feel quite safe in the supposition that your biases won't change much from one case to the other.
Ignoring that "obey and survive" has never been something I've said or even suggested, the fact that I can and do pick and choose what comments to make and when to make them indicates only that I pick and choose what I say and when I say it. I don't read every post made on this forum. I haven't even read every post in this thread. (It's 103 pages, ffs.) When I do read posts, I reply if I have something to add. So any assumptions you've made based on what I haven't said are invalid.
I maintain there were other options.
It's pretty easy to quarterback from your armchair on Monday morning, isn't it? But when you're facing someone who's pointing a weapon at you and it discharges toward your face, it's entirely reasonable to take action that amounts to deadly force, especially when that person has already displayed a disregard for your own well-being.
Also if it really was that easily justifiable, there would be no immediate need for people to pass the dead man off as a scumbag who had it coming.
A: What people who weren't there claim about the personal attributes of Brooks has nothing to do with what Brooks did the night he was shot.
B: I haven't done that at all, so why are you talking to me about this as if it's some kind of retort to any points I've raised?