• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlanta police chief resigns after an officer fatally shot a black man Friday night

Ouroboros said:
As long as some posters have chosen to analyze the cops “ response as humiliation and so on, shouldn’t we apply the same analysis to Brooks?

I don’t think it’s likely that, as someone suggested, that Brooks was suicidal. But what mental factors would make a man who’s been drinking and then fails a sobriety test, believe that fighting two cops was a better idea than letting himself spend time in a DUI cell?

Entitlement springs to mind. “I’m a proud black man and no cop’s gonna pull me in!”

Another death caused by BLM.
Click to expand...

you misspelled "stupidity"
 
Yasureoktoo said:
No, the American system of "behaving" needs an overhaul.
Click to expand...

You sir, are not in touch with what is happening. First, our government and its agencies exist to serve the people. The people are not expected to "respect" a system that does not serve them. The statement that people need to just behave and listen to their government is patently absurd.

The police, as rule, have usurped their charter. They have taken a character of violence that is not in step with American values. People are dying needlessly because of this violence. This is why people no longer trust the police. This is why people are in the streets.

Policing in this country needs an overhaul. It needed it years ago, but we just kept ignoring it. Finally, its not being ignored.
 
I don't see how the officers were in an immediate threat situation when the guy was literally running off.
 
Ouroboros said:
As long as some posters have chosen to analyze the cops “ response as humiliation and so on, shouldn’t we apply the same analysis to Brooks?

I don’t think it’s likely that, as someone suggested, that Brooks was suicidal. But what mental factors would make a man who’s been drinking and then fails a sobriety test, believe that fighting two cops was a better idea than letting himself spend time in a DUI cell?

Entitlement springs to mind. “I’m a proud black man and no cop’s gonna pull me in!”

Another death caused by BLM.
Click to expand...

IMO just being drunk could cover it. Who knows, when the autopsy is released, maybe they'll find something else in his blood?







This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
maxparrish said:
It is a split second between the time a perp escaped the officer(s) in a fight and and chase began. Once that happened over two seconds of full bore running one doesn't contemplate driver's licenses, or speculate on the violent perps "true danger" to the community or count number of shots by violent felon; one only has time to react to defend themselves.

And yes a high speed chase is sometimes discouraged, TO PROTECT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS, not to protect the suspect from capture or the perp hurting him/herself.

With that you need to rethink your entire opinion on this issue, as do (unfortunately) millions of others reacting purely from their emotional core.
Click to expand...

I dont get your points. OK, that's what you think. None of it changes what I believe in my post.

But remember this, even shooting the taser at the cops, that's not a lethal threat. If that's the belief for police depts, the cops themselves wouldnt have deployed them originally during the incident.

Then add in that the cops can and know enough to stay out of range of the taser and does anyone know yet if the taser COULD have been deployed again that quickly? I dont but the cops would. In any case, again...since the suspect kept running AWAY from the cops, he was by no means an imminent lethal threat.




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Untrue! He fell asleep in the drive through line. It appears that you don't know the facts. :lamo
Click to expand...

Perhaps you got me. Then again, the Broncos did put up a few meaningless points on the 49ers in SuperBowl XXIV. But, its meaningless it is at that fact not germane to the point. The underlying incident was substantially benign, but elevated to violence and death; wrongful death.

Atlanta Police killed a man. They shot him in the back when he tried to escape. The underlying potential crime should not, in any case, have led a death. If someone is shot in the back, the officer should be fired and then asked to justify his job, which is what happened here. The police failed; but the city administration did the right thing with a bad set of circumstances.

This is but an in-your-face illustration of why policing in this country needs an overhaul. This is why people are in the streets. If you don't see the social injustice this, sir, I suggest you have your heart and soul checked.
 
Last edited:
Metric Mouse said:
Cops should just let anyone who resists or drives drunk or shoots at them go on their way. After all, it's not like the guy hit them while shooting at them. Pretty poor marksmanship, considering the distance, so he was clearly not a threat.
Click to expand...

:roll: I guess I'll just disagree with your post that's mostly empty of reality.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
So you just made a bucketload of excuses trying to justify the shooting.
Click to expand...
I've done nothing of the sort. I listed "a bucketload" of reasons the police were fully justified in not letting him just run away.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I've done nothing of the sort. I listed "a bucketload" of reasons the police were fully justified in not letting him just run away.
Click to expand...

OK well, I disagree and those reasons havent changed since I wrote them. They knew where they could find him and that he wasnt likely to get much more use out of the taser to be any danger to the public (I havent researched the recharge/shooting specs on the taser...but I'm sure someone will.)

It's certainly not a legitimate reason to kill a suspect only to prevent them from stealing police property.




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
snakestretcher said:
He 'used' the taser well out of its effective range which is between 20 and 25 feet. He turned, continued running away, and was shot dead in the back. At that point he was in no danger to anyone. Watch the video.
Click to expand...
There is an argument to be made, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, that a person need not be a deadly threat at the precise moment deadly force is used. See Scott v. Harris. Senile old Justice Stevens dissented from the opinion that deadly force (running a fleeing vehicle off the road) was not justified because (partly) at the time they ran the vehicle off the road, there were no other vehicles around for the driver to threaten. This was pointed out to be clear lunacy by the majority, as the lack of other vehicles in the immediate vicinity is when a PIT maneuver should be used, otherwise it exposes the public to an unreasonable risk of becoming involved in a wreck. Likewise, if a person is judged to be a deadly threat, and likely to continue to be such, the best time to take your shots is when they are facing away from you and you are not exposed to their deadly actions.

Whether that reasoning applies here will shake out in time. But there is precedent for it.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
I'm still torn on this one, to the point of leaving it up to the courts. I thought Mr. Person made a decent logical argument, but I still find that damn TASER shot by the victim to be problematic. The only thing I do feel sure of, is getting TASERs out of law enforcement.
Click to expand...

I am of the mindset the officers used exceedingly poor judgement and elevated a benign situation to a violent one.

While the officer may have been legally in the right to fire his weapon, it was exceptionally poor policing on his part. He should be fired for bad judgment resulting in death. I am not in favor of prosecuting the officers for murder, but I do hope the family sues him (and the city) for wrongful death with the officer enjoying a fine career as an Amazon delivery guy (never policing again).

What we witnessed is an example of why people are in the streets: the inner city police are quick to escalate situations to violence with people needlessly hurt and killed. This results in a lack of faith that officers are their to serve; will do the right thing. This, in turn, creates the fight/flight problem for anyone arrested, particularly inner-city black man most prone to questionable killings by police. Why should we expect an inner-city black person to just let a cop put a pair of handcuffs on him?

Policing in the country needs to be re-thought; its mission re-defined and many of the things it has been chartered to do taken off its plate. We also need to do a much better job helping police de-escalate violent situations (training and making it difficult for them when a situation does become violent and they use force). ALL violence by police, resulting in death or a hospital visit should have a very thorough investigation conducted by someone independent of local law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Why do you want these kinds of police shootings to keep happening?
Click to expand...

Honestly?

IMO nine times out of ten it is because the suspect being arrested tries to resist arrest.

The other one time in ten? Any combination of over-reaction, poor training, incompetence, corruption, or a cop with a "god complex" ala "Training Day" (2001).
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
OK well, I disagree and those reasons havent changed since I wrote them. They knew where they could find him and that he wasnt likely to get much more use out of the taser to be any danger to the public (I havent researched the recharge/shooting specs on the taser...but I'm sure someone will.)

It's certainly not a legitimate reason to kill a suspect only to prevent them from stealing police property.
Click to expand...
This creates a perverse incentive, encouraging people under arrest to resist and flee.

Also, I have yet to read one of your posts that is less than 50% signature. Just wondering if you realize how irritating that is. This is a rhetorical statement. It needs no response. Just something for you to consider.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
There is an argument to be made, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, that a person need not be a deadly threat at the precise moment deadly force is used. See Scott v. Harris. Senile old Justice Stevens dissented from the opinion that deadly force (running a fleeing vehicle off the road) was not justified because (partly) at the time they ran the vehicle off the road, there were no other vehicles around for the driver the threaten. This was pointed out to be clear lunacy by the majority, as the lack of other vehicles in the immediate vicinity is when a PIT maneuver should be used, otherwise it exposes the public to an unreasonable risk of becoming involved in a wreck. Likewise, if a person is judged to be a deadly threat, and likely to continue to be such, the best time to take your shots is when they are facing away from you and you are not exposed to their deadly actions.

Whether that reasoning applies here will shake out in time. But there is precedent for it.
Click to expand...

I have continually made the 'threat to public safety' argument. And considering the nature of tasers...it may not have had more than one or two shots left in it AND it is considered a less-than-lethal weapon.

I dont see why the cops would believe that a drunk guy who only wanted something to eat would all of a sudden go on some violent rampage against the public...he reacted violently to restraint...he had a reason there...some stupid drunken panicky reason maybe. Maybe he had warrants out on him. He was completely wrong but once running off? Using the 'reasonable man' standard? Well, IMO that will be hard to convince a jury that he was going on a rampage.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Grizzly Adams said:
This creates a perverse incentive, encouraging people under arrest to resist and flee.

Also, I have yet to read one of your posts that is less than 50% signature. Just wondering if you realize how irritating that is. This is a rhetorical statement. It needs no response. Just something for you to consider.
Click to expand...

Resisting and fleeing are not capital offenses. The cops are not out there to punish people. They capture them and allow a judge and jury to do so. THOSE penalties are intended to be deterrents and punishment.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
:roll: I guess I'll just disagree with your post that's mostly empty of reality.
Click to expand...

That's the reality of anyone who says that the police should not have tried to apprehend Rayshad because they had his driver's license.
 
Lursa said:
THOSE penalties are intended to be deterrents and punishment.
Click to expand...

Those verdicts and sentences are intended to be justice, incarceration and rehabilitation. That is, respectively, public security and opportunity for redemption. These are the foundations of justice, that which makes being a part of society worthwhile. That which justifies society. Punishment is a misconception, a rampant and deeply ingrained misconception.
 
upsideguy said:
I am of the mindset the officers used exceedingly poor judgement and elevated a benign situation to a violent one.

While the officer may have been legally in the right to fire his weapon, it was exceptionally poor policing on his part. He should be fired for bad judgment resulting in death. I am not in favor of prosecuting the officers for murder, but I do hope the family sues him (and the city) for wrongful death with the officer enjoying a fine career as an Amazon delivery guy (never policing again).

What we witnessed is an example of why people are in the streets: the inner city police are quick to escalate situations to violence with people needlessly hurt and killed. This results in a lack of faith that officers are their to serve; will do the right thing. This, in turn, creates the fight/flight problem for anyone arrested, particularly inner-city black man most prone to questionable killings by police. Why should we expect an inner-city black person to just let a cop put a pair of handcuffs on him?

Policing in the country needs to be re-thought; its mission re-defined and many of the things it has been chartered to do taken off its plate. We also need to do a much better job helping police de-escalate violent situations (training and making it difficult for them when a situation does become violent and they use force). ALL violence by police, resulting in death or a hospital visit should have a very thorough investigation conducted by someone independent of local law enforcement.
Click to expand...
makes no sense
firing him for what he was legally authorized to do as a police officer


the only criticism of the officers i have is allowing one drunk guy to kick both their asses while taking one of their tasers
that demonstrates a need for better combat training
 
ecofarm said:
Those verdicts and sentences are intended to be justice, incarceration and rehabilitation. That is, respectively, public security and opportunity for redemption. These are the foundations of justice, that which makes being a part of society worthwhile. That which justifies society. Punishment is a misconception, a rampant and deeply ingrained misconception.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know but guess what? I dont care. Justice IS punishment in most cases. Think about what they are often getting justice for and what the word 'justice' actually means. And certainly so is incarceration punishment. As for a deterrent...of course it's a hope. IMO I dont necessarily believe in it for most types of crimes but yes...it can be considered an attempt at that.

And I'm not interested in addressing it further here. (sorry, overly focused right now...I gets a bit sharp)


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
I would like to think facts matter. I would also like to think that this civil unrest would end if the facts mattered more than the media sensationalist narratives and the manipulations of anti-racist fanatics.

They don't. But in case you'd ever like to question how and why you have come to pass on a lie, your introspection starts with acknowledging that you really havn't researched the statistics and most likely are repeating left-of-center "truthies" provided by the like-minded; those 'fict-facts' (fictional facts) that serve as the counterfeit currency of outrage for progressives and their fellow travelers.

So then, to begin here is what's going on (taken mostly verbatim from WSJ (H. McDonald), behind paywall):

- In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most being either armed or otherwise dangerous. Black were about a quarter of those killed (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. Yet, that share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects.

- It isn't surprising that they encounter armed and violent black suspects, far more than any other race proportionally. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

- Yet, in 2019 while police shot 9 unarmed blacks they also shot 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. By the way, the Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase.

- In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

<snipped ... i needed the characters...>

- The latest in a series of studies debunking systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.

-A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

The net affect of the anti-police disinformation machine has been to inflame civil unrest and fuel the assignation of police officers in ambushes. More recently it has caused the destruction of police precincts, courthouses, and civilization destructive violence.

In short, the first step is to acknowledge reality is not what you've been told. The second step is to ask why you have been lied to.
Click to expand...

That is a good post. I don't agree with most of it and I think you are trying to obfuscate the point, but I appreciate the post. It is worthy of a response.... which as most of my posts, will be well backed up.

Overall, I think you are missing the point. No one is suggesting the police are the leading cause of deaths of black men. Yes, blacks are convicted of more crimes than whites. Some of that has some validity, some of it has to do with poor people are not in position to defend themselves in court, but that really isn't what we are talking about. ... and, yes we do have a violence problem within our cities. We also have problem with our police departments contributing to the violence, which is the discussion.

There is a preview. I have a busy first half of the week, but this post is worthy of a good response.

BTW.... I am not "told stuff" you obviously haven't read too many of my posts. Stand by.

Thanx.
 
justabubba said:
the only criticism of the officer i have is allowing one drunk guy to kick both their asses while taking one of their tasers
that demonstrates a need for better combat training
Click to expand...

I commented on that a couple of times too. Drunks, people on drugs (and he may have been, no autopsy released yet) can be freakishly strong and also not respond to pain normally.

And it raised the question...is this validation of the need for (the now mostly illegal/banned) choke holds? I'm not pleased to make the observation but...again, it's a question. And if such a restriction on breathing/blood flow is needed "sometimes" are there safer alternatives?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
makes no sense
firing him for what he was legally authorized to do as a police officer


the only criticism of the officers i have is allowing one drunk guy to kick both their asses while taking one of their tasers
that demonstrates a need for better combat training
Click to expand...

Makes no sense??? are you kidding???? having the legal right to do something and actually doing it are two different things. You really don't understand that? Because something is legal does not make it right. Did your parents not teach you that? Because you can do something does not mean you should do something. We expect judgement from our employees. You are accountable to your employer for your judgement.

No one needed to die here, but someone did because of someone's poor judgement. We expect our employees (including police) do the right thing; not the bear minimum legal thing. The officer exercised poor judgment in the situation, which is why he no longer has a job. Whether he can or should be charged with a crime is another matter.
 
apdst said:
Sure, but there wasn't the gnashinh of the teeth over it.
Click to expand...

You didn't care about it. You don't ever seem to have a problem with cops shooting anyone. That shooting of that teen sparked a lot of protest at the time. But to no avail his fellow cops cleared the cop who did the shooting. It's just another example of why you cannot have cops investigating when comes to this issue.
 
Lursa said:
Yeah I know but guess what? I dont care. Justice IS punishment in most cases. Think about what they are often getting justice for and what the word 'justice' actually means. And certainly so is incarceration punishment. As for a deterrent...of course it's a hope. IMO I dont necessarily believe in it for most types of crimes but yes...it can be considered an attempt at that.

And I'm not interested in addressing it further here. (sorry, overly focused right now...I gets a bit sharp)
Click to expand...

Laws don't deter nothin'. People gonna do what they think they oughta. Laws serve as a vehicle for justice. Justice is what justifies society. It's what makes the deal worthwhile.

"Would you like to join our society, we punish people."

No, thanks. There's nothing in it for me.

"Would you like to join our society, we offer public security and opportunity for redemption."

Yes, thank you. I hope I'm not subject to the means of either, but it's good to know it's there for me and others. We have a deal.


Punishment is linguistically ingrained in our justice system. But it's not a punishment system. It's a justice system. It would be great if more people came to the just conception of the machine.
 
Metric Mouse said:
That's the reality of anyone who says that the police should not have tried to apprehend Rayshad because they had his driver's license.
Click to expand...

Why? He wasnt a threat to anyone...he was a panicked drunk who would eventually end up at home. Or hiding at a friends? Either way, no dead guy and no fired cop and no huge lawsuit on its way.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom