• 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!

Black Georgia sheriff says shooting of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta police was 'completely justified'

Lursa said:
Except that we know the model that the GA cops had and it only had 2. Posted in several of these threads.

Dont you look silly now? Your attempt to score points =:failpail:
Click to expand...

Not really. You yourself now admit Brooks had a shot remaining.
 
Anthony60 said:
The question I asked was "You are saying that the cop delayed shooting and just plugged him in the back?"
Click to expand...
Did you talk to the cop? Do you know why he shot him in the back?

That's not an answer to the question, it's a given in the question.
Click to expand...
It is the only real answer to your moronic question. How the **** would anyone know what the cop was thinking or why the acted the way he did.
 
Lursa said:
I never said a thing that Brooks did was right. However I have been clear...as are the circumstances and video and actual actions/comments of the cops...that Brooks never committed any capital offenses. Lethal force was not justified. (Why do you keep ignoring the fact that after that last shot, the taser was fully discharged and the DA has said that Rolfe knew it?)
Click to expand...

Who said he committed a capital offense? I can only defend my arguments. He pointed a weapon at the officer, so of course he was authorized to use his weapon. There's no burden on the officer to figure out, in a split second, what the weapon is and if it's loaded. You know there have been shootings before where a person wasn't even going for a weapon, but the shooting was justified, right?

And nothing erases the fact that since lethal force wasnt justified, that the cop was more dangerous than the escaping Brooks with an empty taser...the cop put a bullet in a car with 3 people in it.
Click to expand...
This part is moot, since we've established that the shooting was justified. Thank you.
 
prometeus said:
Did you talk to the cop? Do you know why he shot him in the back?

It is the only real answer to your moronic question. How the **** would anyone know what the cop was thinking or why the acted the way he did.
Click to expand...

Now, no need to get upset just because you can't give a proper answer to the question. Just move on, nothing to be ashamed about.
 
Anthony60 said:
There's no burden on the officer to figure out, in a split second, what the weapon is
Click to expand...
So how does the cop make the decision that it is a weapon if it is not know what it is?

This part is moot, since we've established that the shooting was justified.
Click to expand...
No, you are trying to pass it as such. Shooting someone in the back is never justified.
 
Anthony60 said:
Now, no need to get upset just because you can't give a proper answer to the question.
Click to expand...
I gave a proper answer to your retarded question and no projection or deflection will change the fact that you asked a retarded question.
 
prometeus said:
So how does the cop make the decision that it is a weapon if it is not know what it is?

No, you are trying to pass it as such. Shooting someone in the back is never justified.
Click to expand...

Months of training, exercises, and judgment. Is how they make that decision, and again, not sure if you realize this, they don't have the luxury of waiting, reviewing, watching it again, they have to make that judgement, based on a hundred different factors, in seconds.

You are right, shooting someone in the back is never justified, but what if, when he fired, the assailant was facing him, and turned as the shots were fired, how would you classify that, did he shoot him in the back then, or no?
 
prometeus said:
So how does the cop make the decision that it is a weapon if it is not know what it is?
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can't expect him to know what it is in that split second.

No, you are trying to pass it as such. Shooting someone in the back is never justified.
Click to expand...
I can think of one right off the bat, though there are many. Like when the guy points his weapon at you, the cop decides to fire back, and in the lag time the guy has turned around.
 
sjmay said:
Months of training, exercises, and judgment. Is how they make that decision, and again, not sure if you realize this, they don't have the luxury of waiting, reviewing, watching it again, they have to make that judgement, based on a hundred different factors, in seconds.
Click to expand...
Exactly so. The point is that the other poster claimed that the cop did not know what kind of weapon it was, which in the least is stupid. In this case the important aspect is that Brooks was shot in the back, so the split second decision is irrelevant because at the time of firing Brooks has turned away and was not a threat.

You are right, shooting someone in the back is never justified, but what if, when he fired, the assailant was facing him, and turned as the shots were fired, how would you classify that, did he shoot him in the back then, or no?
Click to expand...
Yes, such a scenario would certainly merit consideration and investigation. Now back to this incident, from the video evidence it is clear that Brooks was not shot in the back while turning away, but was actually a further distance away than when he was turned and facing the cop.
 
Anthony60 said:
Exactly. You can't expect him to know what it is in that split second.
Click to expand...
But he has to know that it is a weapon or at least something that can reasonably be assumed to be one. At that point the cop did not shoot. He shot AFTER Brooks turned and was running away.

I can think of one right off the bat, though there are many. Like when the guy points his weapon at you, the cop decides to fire back, and in the lag time the guy has turned around.
Click to expand...
And put some distance between you and him...
 
prometeus said:
Exactly so. The point is that the other poster claimed that the cop did not know what kind of weapon it was, which in the least is stupid. In this case the important aspect is that Brooks was shot in the back, so the split second decision is irrelevant because at the time of firing Brooks has turned away and was not a threat.
Click to expand...

This didn't happen in slow motion. The guy turned to fire the taser and the cop reacted as he was trained to do when confronted with someone trying to harm him. I don't see how the DA is going to be able to prove that Brooks wasn't the aggressor in this situation.
 
prometeus said:
But he has to know that it is a weapon or at least something that can reasonably be assumed to be one. At that point the cop did not shoot. He shot AFTER Brooks turned and was running away.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not possible for the cop to shoot instantaneously. He'd have to be one of those trick shot, quick draw guys that knew what was going to happen in advance to get a shot off that quickly!

So there is a lag, as mentioned before but apparently is not common knowledge.

And put some distance between you and him...
Click to expand...

Hence, the lag time between deciding to fire and actually firing. As the cop is doing that, the perp does not freeze in time, he still continues to do what he is doing. Physics doesn't change to fit liberal arguments against cops.
 
prometeus said:
I gave a proper answer to your retarded question and no projection or deflection will change the fact that you asked a retarded question.
Click to expand...

Uh oh, someone's a little triggered. You libs are nothing if not consistent. When you are befuddled, the name calling starts. Try to compose yourself and get back to the debate, I know you can do it.

(And boy, you sure didn't want to answer the question. Don't think that was lost in this)
 
Lursa said:
Brooks committed no capital offenses.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you keep using this phrase lol

A "capital offense" is a crime punishable by death in a court of law, meaning, basically, murder

Are you arguing that a police officer is only allowed to use lethal force after a suspect has committed a capital offense? Cops needs to wait until a suspect actually murders somebody in order to be able to fire their weapon at them?

This means that if someone breaks into your home and points a gun at you, and a cop sees this going on, the cop isn't allowed to fire his gun until after you are dead
 
Lursa said:
--If Brooks HAD stopped, turned, and charged the cops with the charged taser, they would have been justified in using lethal force
Click to expand...

This is an extremely dangerous policy to propose - Waiting until an armed suspect is "charging you" before you are able to fire your weapon?

Good luck getting anybody to join the police force

Also, you used the phrase "with the charged taser," and earlier you were claiming Rolfe knew that Brooks' taser was discharged ??? If Rolfe truly knew that the taser was discharged, for me, that turns this whole thing on its head, but personally, I haven't seen any evidence of that, at least not yet
 
Last edited:
TomFitz said:
“Knowledgeable people” ruled it a homicide.

I don’t care how FoxNoise twists a interview in order to pander this audience.

Ray shard Brooks is dead because the cop that let the situation get out of hand didn’t want to back to the station and tell the boss that he had lost his weapon to a drunk.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s homicide. That’s obvious. What does that have to do with the legality of it?
 
roguenuke said:
What is up with people not knowing what homicide means? If police kill someone who is firing a rifle into a crowd, absolutely justified, saving lives, the death is still going to be listed as a homicide on the report because homicide only means a person killed them, they didnt die of natural causes, an accident, or suicide. It merely means someone else killed the person.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Most liberal posts are born of emotion, more so than knowledge.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Did I say that was supposed to happen? That an entire (Lying Lib) city is currently acting on pure emotion....I do not expect them to be convinced on any logic.
Click to expand...

Bingo. If it’s a White cop and black “victim/perp”, that’s all they need to know.
 
roguenuke said:
The DA should realize that the charges are unlikely to stick if he tries. Brooks had a weapon and if anyone within the courts or hierarchy of the police department, government deemed that weapon even potentially lethal (and it likely has been deemed as such since other police cases have shown it can be..), the officer's lawyer can easily bring that up and use it to justify lethal force in stopping Brooks. Even his being fired was reactionary to politics rather than reasoned investigation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, and this very DA stated the the tazer was a deadly weapon a couple weeks ago in cases where the cops used them on “protesters “. He’s in trouble politically.
 
Josie said:
This didn't happen in slow motion. The guy turned to fire the taser and the cop reacted as he was trained to do when confronted with someone trying to harm him. I don't see how the DA is going to be able to prove that Brooks wasn't the aggressor in this situation.
Click to expand...
He does not have to prove any such thing as the shooting did not happen in that situation, it happened after Brooks turned around and was running away.
 
prometeus said:
He does not have to prove any such thing as the shooting did not happen in that situation, it happened after Brooks turned around and was running away.
Click to expand...

Again, this didn't happen in slow motion. All of the actions of those involved will be part of the trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom