Let's hope the Atlanta DA puts to rest the attempts here to justify the killing of Rayshard Brooks

[StarfishSaver]

and, more important, causes people who do tend to go out of their way to immediately give the benefit of the doubt to police officers and assume that victims of police killings are responsible for their deaths to think more deeply about the pervasiveness of police brutality and why the Black Lives Matter
movement is so necessary.

[Gothmog]

1. That District Attorney did a great job of putting the case out there

I was impressed with the job that this District Attorney did in putting out his case. Firing a gun into a crowd is never a good idea. The fact that some bystanders were nearly hit is scary and I am glad that these witnesses have come forward.

Again, I hope that you are correct

[First Speaker]

2. I will readily admit I was totally wrong about this case...

...at first, I thought that it was, relatively, more ambiguous than the George Floyd murder. Watching the press conference, I was just shocked by the evidence. In some ways, this is *more* depraved than the Floyd case. And more disturbing. I should have known better right from the start...

[StarfishSaver]

7. The fact that Rolfe was fired in less than 24 hours was the first indication to me

that no one in a position to know believed the shooting was justified. If there was any possibility that it was justified, he'd have just been put on leave.

[rockfordfile]

25. I agree

[obamanut2012]

63. Lots of folks on here blamed the murder victim

Lots of LEO humpers on DU, always has been.

[CatWoman]

3. i read some of it and it was fucking sickening

[uponit7771]

4. K&R, after the last 3 weeks some people still sound like that's how police are SUPPOSED to act

[Codeine]

31. For a significant portion of the American public

police brutality isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

[wellst0nev0ter]

35. For a significant portion HERE on DU

I won't name names, but you know who you are.

[obamanut2012]

64. yup

[stillcool]

5. It's gone on too long...

They either want to provoke an argument, or they have an agenda, or they're outing themselves. So much is not what it seems.

[StarfishSaver]

9. So frustrating that after countless instances of brutality

cops still get the benefit of the doubt and the dead black man is assumed to be a criminal not only responsible for but even deserving of his own death from people who are supposed to be our allies is very frustrating - and it demonstrates just what minorities are up against.

This has been happening for years, but no one believes us!

[moonscape]

42. You know, I'm white and didn't disbelieve, but admit

even for me, a supposed believer, this has been a real wake-up call to the depth and breadth and systemically chilling pure evil of the problem.

I've spent a lot of time digging and reflecting on my white privilege, how I move about in the world and how much I take for granted. And, I can say that my white friends and I are having conversations in new ways that force us to inquire of ourselves how we might have been - or if we were, and how - unknowingly, passively, complicit.

I am so very sorry.

[StarfishSaver]

44. So glad you're having these conversations

No need to apologize. You're doing the work!

[StarfishSaver]

61. ...

[obamanut2012]

62. I GOT HIM! the kicking while he was dying, the standing on shoulders

FOR TWO MINUTES WHILE HE DIED.

It wasn't even "normal" police brutality, it was depraved.

[SlogginThroughIt]

8. Went round and round with a member here the other day.

Wonder if they will chime in here on this post. Defending this murder was ridiculous in my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Several members defended it

And some got really nasty about it.

[TCJ70]

11. Was there some new information that wasn't in the body cam footage?

Those officers spent a lot of time, quite respectfully, trying to get straight answers from him and if you watch the body cam footage his story changes quite frequently. What he drank, how much, where he thought he was...he was definitely in a confused place. People are saying why didn't they just let him walk home, but he didn't know where he was. If they let him go and then he came back and started driving his car how does that come back on those officers? There's a lot to consider.

As soon as he grabbed the officers equipment and fired it at them he opened himself up to all kinds of possibilities. There are some things you don't do no matter who you are. Two of those things are taking police weapons and firing it at them. Those cops weren't there to hurt him and that's obvious from the 30+ minute conversation they had with him prior to him deciding to fight them.

If there's some new information I'd be happy to have my mind changed, but this is where I'm at on it right now.

[StarfishSaver]

12. You should try to keep up

Check out today's news before trying to push this narrative ...

[TCJ70]

13. So rather than point in the direction...

...you accuse me of pushing a narrative when I straight up asked if there was new information. Thanks, I guess.

[StarfishSaver]

15. It would take too long to explain it to you

But if you just read some of the posts in this thread and several other threads on the board, you will learn a lot.

I just find it surprising that you would jump into this thread to continue an argument about a topic that you haven't even bothered to keep up with even though it's been top news most of afternoon.

[TCJ70]

19. It is possible to miss things and not spend all your time reading on one incident...

...and when replying to your post I hadn't seen anything else about it. Hence, my question. Again...thanks, I guess.

[StarfishSaver]

22. I would think if you see an OP that clearly indicated a new development occurred,

you might have done a quick Google check to try to inform yourself before jumping into the thread trying to start an argument.

If you had time to read my OP and compose several paragraphs trying to argue with it, you surely had time to do a quick read up on the topic

[TCJ70]

29. Seems like you thought wrong. I asked a question, gave you where I'm at on the topic...

...in hopes for a conversation. This will be my last reply to you.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Promise?

[LanternWaste]

16. I think we can now safely say the justifications won't in fact, rest.

And may begin to double down on themselves over the next 72 hours.

[mcar]

14. Might be a good idea to read the DAs account

and the charges.

He shot Mr. Brooks in the back from 18'. There was no threat, no danger. The cops knew the taser was out of juice. No threat, no danger.

Yours is a losing argument.

[TCJ70]

32. I'll look into it.

I asked for more information and appreciate you providing some of it. I’ll probably stick to my “don’t point police weapons at them” argument though. It’s just a dumb idea.

[mcar]

45. Here's a start

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142517015

[cayugafalls]

18. Yes, there is new information. It was spelled out in the news conference.

You should not have had to see the news conference to understand that he should not have been fired upon, let alone SHOT IN THE BACK.

After he was shot in the back, the officer said "I got him". Then instead of rendering aid, which is required by the APD code, they waited 2 and 1/2 minutes while sitting on his back. Oh yea, he also went up to him and kicked him after he shot him IN THE BACK.

There is a code that says they are not supposed to shoot a taser, let alone their police gun, in a chase when the suspect is running with their back towards the officer.

Lots of things were done wrong. They murdered him. Pure and simple.

[soothsayer]

24. Plus they set him up for a DUI in my opinion

“You just want to sleep? Ok just drive your car over there and park it.”

Boom. Got him! Even though he wasn’t on a road.

To me that was a setup the likes of which you used to see from the horrible cops on Live PD, which I’m glad is finished.

Anyway he was peaceful and fine for what, 20 minutes? 30? 40?

Then they CAUSED this to happen. Or that one cop did. He hassled the guy until it escalated.

That’s how I see it anyway. YMMV.

[cayugafalls]

37. I am right there with you.

The length of time was also of concern as they are charged by APD codes to notify a DUI is under arrest as soon as possible. 40 minutes is way to long according to the DA.

Once you are suspected of being drunk, you are to be charged and arrested. Not hang out and discuss and then all of the sudden flip[ around to his back and grab his arm and say you are under arrest. It should have been handled way differently.

[StarfishSaver]

39. This is something the DA stressed

They spent an inordinate amount of time with him and it wasn't because they were trying to help him. The implication is they were trying to get him agitated so the situation would escalate.

Regardless, it was terrible policing. They're supposed to de-escalate situations, to calm down agitated people not take calm people, mess with them for 45 minutes and somehow get them agitated to the point that they're fighting and running away.

[cayugafalls]

49. Exactly! They were escalating, rather than de-escalating.

The DA even commented on how calm Mr. Brooks was...

Oh my lord, I am so heartbroken...he just wanted to go home.

[StarfishSaver]

51. I feel worse about this today than before

That poor man.

No wonder he ran. He was terrified. And he was right.

[PTWB]

38. Most states have provisions that you don't actually need to be driving to be DUI.

I just looked Georgia up and their state is the same.

In Georgia if you are in “actual physical control” of the vehicle, such as being passed out in the driver’s seat with the car running or keys accessible, it is no different than if you were driving down the road and weaving from lane to lane.

[TCJ70]

28. Thank you for outlining some of it. I didn't watch the conference or knew that there even was one.

Apparently that's unthinkable to some people on this board. Immediate reaction to what you wrote having looked up and skimmed only one article (since I'm already under fire for being less than informed about the new stuff):

- I don't see why it's a problem that they shot him in the back in this case. He had a weapon and had pointed or fired it at them.
- "I got him" isn't an odd thing to say after firing a gun at someone I suppose. Never been in that situation but by itself that doesn't sound odd to me.
- I'm seeing conflicting reports that the officer did end up administering CPR to the guy.
- I don't know anything about codes so if that exists I'm sure it'll come up again

All the stuff that happened after he was shot doesn't excuse what came before it to me. Don't steal police equipment and point it at them. That's like a basic of existence. I still don't think they went out there to murder someone.

I'll have to watch the press conference and review the evidence if I can find it. Supposedly there's more video from the Wendys.

[StarfishSaver]

33. You may not have a problem with them shooting him in the back

But the law does. It not only violated department procedure, it is illegal.

As for the rest of your arguments, you really should take a few minutes to catch up with the news before engaging in a discussion of a topic about which you are admittedly poorly informed.

[cayugafalls]

46. The fact that you don't see a problem with him being shot in the back is telling

The APD has a problem with police officers shooting people in the back. It is why they have rules for arresting people that includes NOT shooting someone in the back if they are not a THREAT TO YOUR LIFE.

Since Mr Brooks was running away and his back was toward the officer, he was NOT A THREAT. Also, the taser that he took had been discharged twice and was no longer active, so even pointing it was not a threat.

Officer Rolfe sat on Mr. Brooks back for over 2 minutes without administering any aid. That was in the news conference. I watched the entire bodycam video and at no point did he administer CPR.

You seem hell bent on defending the officer for some reason, when there is no justification for doing so. At this point he has been charged with 11 counts. Felony Murder and various other counts.

People posting here are not trying to fool you, yet you seem to think you are somehow better at seeing truth than the actual DA who is prosecuting the case.

[TCJ70]

48. I've been quite upfront about my ignorance on new developments in this...

...so it’s not like I’m acting like I know everything. You’ll have to forgive me for not immediately taking some internet rando’s word for it on everything and needing to look at the evidence for myself.

[cayugafalls]

52. Ok, only took a couple seconds...here is a link or two to help

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/17/879509659/former-atlanta-police-officer-who-shot-rayshard-brooks-charged-with-felony-murde

The DA conference;

?t=1560

[TCJ70]

56. Thank you for the link. I've watched it from another source I found...

...but thank you anyway. A lot of good information there. Seems like they broke a lot of Georgia laws and regulations. Good luck to the attorneys and I hope they’re successful.

[StarfishSaver]

53. Being ignorant isn't the problem. Jumping all up in this thread trying to start arguments

over a case about which you are obviously and admittedly ignorant is.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Well, there's something about the DA that may make him seem less reliable than the kind of DA some

people are used to.

Not sure what it could be, but it's probably something ...



Same goes for the Mayor ...

[cayugafalls]

55. Bingo. nt

[uponit7771]

47. "I don't see why it's a problem that they shot him in the back in this case" WTF !? Its illegal man,

... that's not at question here.

Tasers are non lethal and didn't need to be met with lethal force.

Bottom line there were multiple stages the LEOs should've deescalated and decided not to that in and of itself is against the law.

There's no giving the LEOs the BOTD on this one.

[TCJ70]

57. Link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13609803

[uponit7771]

59. 👍

[obamanut2012]

66. "I don't see why it's a problem that they shot him in the back"

You are disgusting.

There is never ANY reason for ANYONE, especilly a cop, to shoot someone in the back.

JFC.

[underpants]

23. That was some embarrassingly bad police work

All around. Especially two supposedly grown men on him and he still gets up and away.

[Hav]

27. How respectful do you think it is

to kick and stand on a dying human being?

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. What AAARE the officers supposed to DO?

>People are saying why didn't they just let him walk home, but he didn't know where he was.
>If they let him go and then he came back and started driving his car how does that come
>back on those officers?

They walk him home, or give him a ride. Not that complicated, chief.

[TCJ70]

40. He didn't seem to keen on going anywhere with those officers...

...based on what happened after he failed the breathalyzer.

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. There's also Uber

You know Uber, right?

Use your imagination, chief.

[Ms. Toad]

54. Does standing on Brooks's shoulders and kicking him while he is dying

get your attention? (Both caught on camera - and the second was acknowledged by the perpetrator)

Aside from which the Atlanta SOP prohibits EVEN firing a taser at an individual running away, let alone using deadly force. He was 18' away and opening the gap.

The officers also failed to notify him he was under arrest. They grabbed him, which was his first hint at resistance in 41 minutes and 17 seconds of questions.

The shooter is charged with felony murder.

The second officer has agreed to be a testifying witness against the shooter.

Watch the press conference.

Start at around 35 minutes.

[TCJ70]

58. Link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13609803

[obamanut2012]

67. You keep posting this like it's some kind of mea cupla

Yet you victim blamed all over this thread and stated: "I don't see why it's a problem that they shot him in the back."

wtaf

[TCJ70]

71. I asked for new information...

...took it in, and then changed my mind. If that’s not enough for you then that’s on you.

[obamanut2012]

68. "I don't see why it's a problem that they shot him in the back"

That's you, that's on you. You think that. Thinking that has nothing to do with your fake and non-existent apology.

[obamanut2012]

65. NOne of the interaction was respectful

It is hysterical and appalling you think it was.

BLAMING A MURDER VICTIM BECAUSE THE MURDERS WORE A UNIFORM

[Nature Man]

69. The side of history you're on

is the losing side.

[TCJ70]

70. Link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13609803

[mcar]

17. I was going to ask if the naysayers had recanted

but then I read the thread.

[PSPS]

21. No kidding. I was rather surprised.

Maybe they're years-long trolls with a higher credibility value due to their high post numbers. And this was even after there was video of the cop picking up his shell casings before even checking on the guy he shot.

[soothsayer]

26. Yeah they didn't mention the shells

[Demonaut]

43. stop, people need to be educated, most of us here agree the earth is flat