Minneapolis Officer arrested.

Head Idiot wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:I wish the cops would have just offered him a ride home.

I watched up until about the 25min mark and then the 3 minutes of the shooting.

Did the guy ever become lucent enough to tell them where he lived?

I thought at one point the guy said to the cops that he only lived a few blocks away and he pointed in the direction of where he lived. That was the same direction he was running in when he was shot. The cops said that he was under the influence. I'd be interested in what his BAC was. Given how fast he was running when he was shot he didn't look too drunk to me. He could have been over .08 though.

lefty120 wrote:These guys will never get any type of a fair trial...no chance.

I wouldn't bet money on that.

lefty120 wrote:These guys will never get any type of a fair trial...no chance. This is a joke. Now an attorney representing 3 witnesses is speaking. How many people will be given their 15 min of fame?  Is this normal??  Maybe it is, but man seems slanted to me.

Assume for a moment that the trial is 100% fair.  Based on what you have seen and heard only, what would be a fair outcome in your estimation?

The officer was charged with felony murder and I believe his partner aggravated assault. If I'm a police officer operating in the wake of the George Floyd tragedy I'm going to remind myself as well as my partner that we don't fire our gun unless our lives are in imminent danger. I don't think those two cops were very bright. We've got to change the way these guys are being trained.

Ok. I sat and watched the whole video. Couple observations:
1.  The first officer on the scene, who did not fire the shots that killed Mr Brooks, was VERY professional and actually gave him multiple chances to try to get the heck out of there. Not until he moved out of the drive thru line where he was asleep in his car, and fell asleep again, did he call for a DUI certified officer to assist, who would end up being the shooter.

2.  I felt both officers were very professional in how they handled this guy up until the end. He was HAMMERED and gave multiple versions of how he got to the Wendy’s in the first place. From a lay person point of view, I’d have suspected strong DUI possibility before any field sobriety testing had been administered.

3. Mr Brooks was also very cordial and cooperative up until they tried to take him into custody.

4.  There’s really no proof that he had driven anywhere while intoxicated accept his story he told which said he’d been dropped off and then got into the line to get some burgers.

5.  This dude was strong and athletic. Both cops were decent sized guys and he not only wrestled away from them but also got their taser.

6.  The shooter was the one who had initially patted him down to check for weapons and other items. He should have known he wasn’t a threat!  

7.  My conclusion is honestly this: the shooter should go down...no question. The other cop...no way. He should be reinstated. There was nothing he could have done to stop the shooter. There was a massive struggle, then the shooting officer gave chase as the other cop was struggling to his feet. This was nothing like the Floyd incident where other cops could have stopped this. And some will say he could have suggested calling a friend or Uber...agreed. But he wasn’t certified in DUI examination and was only a 2 year cop. I’d say it’s safe to yield to a veteran DUI certified officer when simply determining whether a guy is going to be taken in or not.

OSUBucks wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:I wish the cops would have just offered him a ride home.

I watched up until about the 25min mark and then the 3 minutes of the shooting.

Did the guy ever become lucent enough to tell them where he lived?

I thought at one point the guy said to the cops that he only lived a few blocks away and he pointed in the direction of where he lived. That was the same direction he was running in when he was shot. The cops said that he was under the influence. I'd be interested in what his BAC was. Given how fast he was running when he was shot he didn't look too drunk to me. He could have been over .08 though.

He also thought he was on about 5 different roads/streets and seemedto struggle when they asked him what city he was in. He may have been 5-25 miles from home.

How does a cop know how it will play out?
https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1273398513796145152?s=19

Taser is a deadly weapon
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1273379778423189505?s=19

tps wrote:Taser is a deadly weapon
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1273379778423189505?s=19

The guy was unarmed-

Joe Biden wrote: “Instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something,

You have a 0.00026% of being killed by police, EVEN IF YOU RESIST ARREST... and you can bring that down to 0.0% by following this one simple rule.

COMPLY.

That's it. The end.

How many people who did NOT resist arrest were killed by police in 2019? Seems like that data would be helpful context. Not the whole story, of course. But ask yourself why you have never seen that stat.

BirdWatcher wrote:You have a 0.00026% of being killed by police, EVEN IF YOU RESIST ARREST... and you can bring that down to 0.0% by following this one simple rule.

COMPLY.

That's it. The end.

How many people who did NOT resist arrest were killed by police in 2019? Seems like that data would be helpful context. Not the whole story, of course. But ask yourself why you have never seen that stat.

If he would have complied with the cops request and allowed himself to be cuffed and put in the squad car he would be alive right now no question. This man never threatened the cops and all he wanted to do is get away from them. You can't kill a man who isn't a danger to you because he's trying to run away. The man had a wife and children and friends who loved him and they will never see him again. You can't value the life of a black man any less than you do a white man.

BirdWatcher wrote:You have a 0.00026% of being killed by police, EVEN IF YOU RESIST ARREST... and you can bring that down to 0.0% by following this one simple rule.

COMPLY.

That's it. The end.

How many people who did NOT resist arrest were killed by police in 2019? Seems like that data would be helpful context. Not the whole story, of course. But ask yourself why you have never seen that stat.

I'm going to guess that the reason is that the person who would be claiming they did not resist is no longer alive to make that claim.

let's keep this simple:

1. citizens should comply
2. police should not shoot (or use other lethal force) those who don't comply UNLESS they pose a serious (your mileage may vary) threat to the police or nearby citizens


and, yes, i realize it's easy for me to say #2 without being in the situation and have to make that decision

Here is an interview with Brooks from earlier this year. He was trying to make it back into society after having spent some time in jail for credit card fraud. He was on probation from that previous charge and when the cops were holding him he probably knew that the DUI charge would land him in jail since he was already on probation. I think running away was just an act of desperation on his part. He was employed full time as a carpenter. It's too bad that his life ended the way it did.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-interview-reconnect-life-after-incarceration/index.html

gingToday at 10:19 am
by ging
let's keep this simple:

1. citizens should comply
2. police should not shoot (or use other lethal force) those who don't comply UNLESS they pose a serious (your mileage may vary) threat to the police or nearby citizens


and, yes, i realize it's easy for me to say #2 without being in the situation and have to make that decision

Doesn't #2 make tough to keep it simple?

tps wrote:gingToday at 10:19 am
by ging
let's keep this simple:

1. citizens should comply
2. police should not shoot (or use other lethal force) those who don't comply UNLESS they pose a serious (your mileage may vary) threat to the police or nearby citizens


and, yes, i realize it's easy for me to say #2 without being in the situation and have to make that decision

Doesn't #2 make tough to keep it simple?

Here's the thing, though. I asked this earlier in the thread. Why do US cops use lethal force so much more frequently than cops in other countries?

If you listen to cops talk, it's like a battlefield out there. They are going to war every day. Yet, the facts don't back that up. Violent crime has been in a steady decline for much of the last 30-40 years.

So, given that, why do US cops use lethal force as often as they do? And why don't cops in other countries use lethal force nearly as often?

I can't read it because I'm out of free articles, but the 9/11 memorial was vandalized in Decatur today-

https://herald-review.com/news/local/its-just-disgusting-decatur-9-11-memorial-site-vandalized/article_1c24a769-aead-5f83-b6b4-48b16918ef01.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Head Idiot wrote:I can't read it because I'm out of free articles, but the 9/11 memorial was vandalized in Decatur today-

https://herald-review.com/news/local/its-just-disgusting-decatur-9-11-memorial-site-vandalized/article_1c24a769-aead-5f83-b6b4-48b16918ef01.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

One bench was stolen and two other benches were loosened from their base. Just more disgusting behavior by assorted morons.

OSUBucks wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:I can't read it because I'm out of free articles, but the 9/11 memorial was vandalized in Decatur today-

https://herald-review.com/news/local/its-just-disgusting-decatur-9-11-memorial-site-vandalized/article_1c24a769-aead-5f83-b6b4-48b16918ef01.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

One bench was stolen and two other benches were loosened from their base. Just more disgusting behavior by assorted morons.

Thanks. Not as bad as some of the stupidity going around, but idiotic nonetheless.

19delta wrote:Here's the thing, though. I asked this earlier in the thread. Why do US cops use lethal force so much more frequently than cops in other countries?

I would say 'culture.' Why do US citizens drive drunk? Way more than other 'civilized' countries? And for driving, why do Americans have an average of 1 pickup truck per household? Are we all farmers at heart? Why don't we use mass transit, generally? We're different in alot of ways from other countries.

We have alot of guns in America. That's a cultural thing as well. With over 300 million guns dispersed among 300+ million citizens, I'm not surprised cops are using more lethal force.

BirdWatcher wrote:

19delta wrote:Here's the thing, though. I asked this earlier in the thread. Why do US cops use lethal force so much more frequently than cops in other countries?

I would say 'culture.'    Why do US citizens drive drunk?  Way more than other 'civilized' countries?  And for driving, why do Americans have an average of 1 pickup truck per household?  Are we all farmers at heart? Why don't we use mass transit, generally?  We're different in alot of ways from other countries.
 
We have alot of guns in America.  That's a cultural thing as well.  With over 300 million guns dispersed among 300+ million citizens, I'm not surprised cops are using more lethal force.

Yes. Culture, indeed. Again, when your only tool is a hammer...

ging wrote:let's keep this simple:

1. citizens should comply
2. police should not shoot (or use other lethal force) those who don't comply UNLESS they pose a serious (your mileage may vary) threat to the police or nearby citizens


and, yes, i realize it's easy for me to say #2 without being in the situation and have to make that decision

i can't believe i totally whiffed on this. it should be:

1. don't break the law
2. citizens who do break the law should comply
3. police should not shoot (or use other lethal force) those who don't comply UNLESS they pose a serious (your mileage may vary) threat to the police or nearby citizens

Head Idiot wrote:https://newschannel20.com/news/local/george-washington-statue-in-illinois-vandalized

Last night in San Francisco, thy tore down a statue of Ulysses S. Grant. Because of his generalship, the Union won the Civil War and ended slavery in this country. AS the 18th President, he was the first Civil Rights President. He was behind the 15th Amendment, got Black-Americans in the Civil Service, appointed Fredrick Douglass ambassador to Haiti, fought the KKK with the Army and Justice Dept., behind anti-KKK laws. As a general and President, stood up for Black-Americans. His family had strong abolitionist roots, the one slave his wife owned before the Civil War, he freed within a year.

Statues of George Washington have been vandalized. Yes, he was a slaveowner. Slavery was an issue that weighed on him his entire life. What I have read, he felt it was morally wrong, was an inefficient labor system, and expensive. I think he did not know how to get out of it. He was instrumental in winning our independence, founding our country, and setting examples of presidential leadership and traditions that are still used today. He is the only man who walked away from power, not once but three times (prevented a military coup by his officers, resigned his commission after the peace treaty was signed, and did not run for a third term. These actions led us to becoming a working republic and not a third world military dictatorship.

Yeah, when I heard that a Grant statue had been torn down I was puzzled by that for some of the reasons you mentioned. Grant was very much a friend of African Americans and one of my favorite historical figures.