Minneapolis Cop Murders A Black Man

[Trey3216 15325]

18 hours ago, youdunnf'dup said:

I saw that. I can’t wait for this case to explode. I personally think this guy should be charged with something, but am I crazy for thinking he’s going to get off with absolutely nothing and walk free? They’re going to argue until they’re blue in the face that a taser is a deadly weapon when in the hands of an untrained civilian. IMO, that’s horse shit, but that’s what they’re going to argue. Isn’t that going to be the loophole that this guy needs to get out of this?

 

I get it man, being a cop is on the short list for most stressful jobs. But dude is literally running away from you and he’s yards away from hog with no sign of turning around to be a threat to you? Shooting in that situation just seems crazy to me. But that’s the loophole this guy needed. 

A Taser is a deadly weapon in anyone's hand, LEO or civilian.  

[Brisketexan 104531]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

A Taser is a deadly weapon in anyone's hand, LEO or civilian.  

Unless it has been fully discharged.  I think that's an important question here -- whether it actually was, and whether the cop knew it was.  It's not dispositive, but it's relevant.

[workswithseed 2033]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Unless it has been fully discharged.  I think that's an important question here -- whether it actually was, and whether the cop knew it was.  It's not dispositive, but it's relevant.

That makes sense, but I'd figure the intent to harm is also there. 

I really wished the guy would have gone to the drunk tank instead.

[Brisketexan 104531]

15 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

That makes sense, but I'd figure the intent to harm is also there. 

I really wished the guy would have gone to the drunk tank instead.

Or even been allowed to wear himself out, running around the parking lot.

Making someone else dead should always be the last choice, avoided if at all possible.  The fact that we have millions of people thinking "well, he did something bad, so he deserved it" tells us we are a broken fucking country.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

5 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Do you think that Native Americans want to be called that to their face?

I won’t attempt to speak on how an Native American thinks. I believe they are the most oppressed race in the United States, and I don’t think it’s even close. However, their votes do not account for significant numbers and therefore it never becomes a major political discussion. We continue to have our emotional strings pulled by the topics our “leaders” want to bring to the front lines while ignoring those subjects which are not important for the overall vote. I won’t go any further for obvious reasons.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

25 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

A Taser is a deadly weapon in anyone's hand, LEO or civilian.  

Not according to the president of the police union in the state of Georgia. But it wouldn’t surprise me if someone in his role would have his facts wrong. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

1 minute ago, youdunnf'dup said:

Not according to the president of the police union in the state of Georgia. But it wouldn’t surprise me if someone in his role would have his facts wrong. 

According to the Georgia DA it is a deadly weapon in the hands of a cop but not in the hands of a suspect.

[Brisketexan 104531]

1 minute ago, EuroHorn said:

According to the Georgia DA it is a deadly weapon in the hands of a cop but not in the hands of a suspect.

finish the sentence -- "if it has been fully discharged and the cop knows it has been fully discharged."  That's an allegation here, and it's a relevant one.

[Gatorubet 30082]

A Taser is a deadly weapon in anyone's hand, LEO or civilian.  

So is a pencil. You can jab it in an eye or spinal cord. Can you shoot him in the back if he had a pencil?

Reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances/facts.

[Lechuza 31]

I love the libtards asking why his family couldn't be called to come pick him up.  Let's assume that was done.  Let's also assume he gets into another vehicle when he gets home and plows into and kills another innocent motorist.  The police would be raked over the coals in that instance and the Plaintiffs lawyers would have a field day with that shit.  The cops handled this like it should have been handled.  Did the cop have to shoot the scumbag after said scumbag tried to tase his face?  That may be questionable, but questionable is not going to get you a criminal conviction.  And why the second cop was charged is even more outrageous.  The chief of police resigning over shit is crazy.  What a spineless loser. 

[Brisketexan 104531]

3 minutes ago, Lechuza said:

I love the libtards asking why his family couldn't be called to come pick him up.  Let's assume that was done.  Let's also assume he gets into another vehicle when he gets home and plows into and kills another innocent motorist.  The police would be raked over the coals in that instance and the Plaintiffs lawyers would have a field day with that shit.  The cops handled this like it should have been handled.  Did the cop have to shoot the scumbag after said scumbag tried to tase his face?  That may be questionable, but questionable is not going to get you a criminal conviction.  And why the second cop was charged is even more outrageous.  The chief of police resigning over shit is crazy.  What a spineless loser. 

Translation: once you believe that a person is bad, then you have the all-clear to KILL HIM DEAD because of what he might do if you don't put him down.

Jesus fucking Christ.

And no, the Plaintiffs lawyers wouldn't have any case.  None.  The police have NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT YOU FROM BAD GUYS.  ZERO.   They fought very, very hard to make that the law, and it's uniform.  A cop could watch a guy pull out a gun, say "now watch me rape this woman," watch him do it, and the cop would have zero liability.  So, forgive us if we don't give much credence to your "legal reasoning" on this topic.

[Lechuza 31]

I'm not sure what you're smoking given your "translation."  Cite me some caselaw professor.  And would that duty change if the police already had detained him, found out he was fucked up out of his mind, and then let him go?  

And let's just say they decided to let him walk home like he wanted to and he got hit by a car.  You don't think his family would sue the police department for letting him go?

Edited June 18, 2020 by Lechuza

[Brisketexan 104531]

6 minutes ago, Lechuza said:

I'm not sure what you're smoking given your "translation."  Cite me some caselaw professor.  And would that duty change if the police already had detained him, found out he was fucked up out of his mind, and then let him go?

Warren v. Dist of Columbia, a 1981 SCOTUS case:

Quote

The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. 

There may be some state that has gone astray from that rule, but if so, it's a wild outlier.

And as for your additional scenario -- detain someone, then let him go -- that would be even LESS liability.  If it were otherwise, then one could assert a claim against a court for not imposing a long-enough sentence on someone who was found to be dangerous, etc.  There's no legal duty there.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Brisketexan

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

25 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

So is a pencil. You can jab it in an eye or spinal cord. Can you shoot him in the back if he had a pencil?

Reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances/facts.

I was literally about to type the question what is more of a deadly weapon. A taser or a sharp stick lol. Seriously....

[Captainant 27390]

8 minutes ago, Lechuza said:

I'm not sure what you're smoking given your "translation."  Cite me some caselaw professor.  And would that duty change if the police already had detained him, found out he was fucked up out of his mind, and then let him go?

In addition to Warren v Dist of Columbia, there's also Castle Rock v Gonzales which found that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

[EuroHorn 3204]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

finish the sentence -- "if it has been fully discharged and the cop knows it has been fully discharged."  That's an allegation here, and it's a relevant one.

Well the DA left that part of the sentence off during the press conference for the cops arrested during the protests

[Brisketexan 104531]

2 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Well the DA left that part of the sentence off during the press conference for the cops arrested during the protests

Ummmmm......because that taser was actually USED.  I mean, it literally had NOT been fully discharged, because it was USED on the victims.  So, you know, kind of a complete difference, so why in the blue fuck would he say that in the earlier case if that wasn't the actual fact?  Are you this fucking stupid?

[EuroHorn 3204]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmmm......because that taser was actually USED.  I mean, it literally had NOT been fully discharged, because it was USED on the victims.  So, you know, kind of a complete difference, so why in the blue fuck would he say that in the earlier case if that wasn't the actual fact?  Are you this fucking stupid?

The brooks guy shot the taser at the cop. It’s in the video. He missed. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by EuroHorn

[Brisketexan 104531]

Just now, EuroHorn said:

The brooks guy shot the taser at the cop. It’s in the video. He missed. 

And that's why I said, the first time I mentioned it, that it was alleged that it was fully discharged, but I want to see the facts on that point. 

[riloh05 107]

i dont have any answers...i think the officer is guilty of something. i think there were 1000's of other things to do before killing a man. putting this up at murder 1 will allow for an acquittal imo which i do not think is the right outcome. there has to be a better way to police this type of situation.

is there a magic rubber bullet, tranquilizer, etc that can be used instead of kill me dead bullets? this doesnt help keep George Floyd alive so are we back at square one?

[EuroHorn 3204]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

And that's why I said, the first time I mentioned it, that it was alleged that it was fully discharged, but I want to see the facts on that point. 

I live in Atlanta and watched the press conference. The DA said during the conference that brooks shot the taser and the DA pointed out the prongs on the video that were above the cops head. 

[Brisketexan 104531]

3 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

I live in Atlanta and watched the press conference. The DA said during the conference that brooks shot the taser and the DA pointed out the prongs on the video that were above the cops head. 

And my question is, if the taser only had two discharges available, and one had already been used (the cop knew this -- he would have been the one to use it), once he fired that second charge and missed, wasn't he then functionally unarmed?  I'm asking that seriously -- I want to understand the facts.

[riloh05 107]

2 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

I live in Atlanta and watched the press conference. The DA said during the conference that brooks shot the taser and the DA pointed out the prongs on the video that were above the cops head. 

that did happen. the DA showed a still photo of the discharged taser headed towards the cop. The explanation was that the cop should have known that there were no more active taser shots after mr brooks fired his initial taser shot.

[EuroHorn 3204]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And my question is, if the taser only had two discharges available, and one had already been used (the cop knew this -- he would have been the one to use it), once he fired that second charge and missed, wasn't he then functionally unarmed?  I'm asking that seriously -- I want to understand the facts.

The cop pulled his gun as soon as brooks turned to shoot the taser.  It’s clear in The NY Times article I posted above.  They show the sequence in slow motion. Of course in real time it’s pretty quick and who knows what is going through the cops mind. 
 

look, I don’t think the guy should have been shot. But I think this DA has rushed to judgment and said things that are going to cause more problems.  I don’t think the cop should have been charged with felony murder. I think a jury will not convict on that and we’ll get to see more riots. 
 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by EuroHorn

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

If it is a DA - it is overcharging. If you think this is a rare cop thing event, I’m not sure what to tell you. You see a cop shoot a guy in the back while running away and assume it a good shoot. I’m happy to disagree. Your gut first instinct is pro cop, while mine is not. So that’s fair. We’ll see.

can't find the study yet, but I remember the Joe Horn castle doctrine case here in Texas.  They accused him of shooting the criminals in the back, but at trial used an FBI study to show how quickly a suspect can turn as is the natural reaction instinctively anticipating a gun being fired at them when they see it.  Instinct makes the body turn away in fractions of a second. 

 

I will keep looking

Edited June 18, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

1 hour ago, Lechuza said:

I love the libtards asking why his family couldn't be called to come pick him up.  Let's assume that was done.  Let's also assume he gets into another vehicle when he gets home and plows into and kills another innocent motorist.  The police would be raked over the coals in that instance and the Plaintiffs lawyers would have a field day with that shit.  The cops handled this like it should have been handled.  Did the cop have to shoot the scumbag after said scumbag tried to tase his face?  That may be questionable, but questionable is not going to get you a criminal conviction.  And why the second cop was charged is even more outrageous.  The chief of police resigning over shit is crazy.  What a spineless loser. 

this post.  wow.

 

just imagine the crimes this guy could have committed!  do whatever you need to do to stop him from my imagination!

 

 

  

[SHOOTER12 8787]

1 hour ago, EuroHorn said:

The brooks guy shot the taser at the cop. It’s in the video. He missed. 

That's what I was thinking even in the yes he did no he didn't back and forth.  I think he did because in the video, when Brooks turns back towards the cop and extends his arm you can clearly see a flash of some sort.

[Homercles 10205]

59 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

this post.  wow.

 

just imagine the crimes this guy could have committed!  do whatever you need to do to stop him from my imagination!

 

 

  

Yeah when controversial topics, especially those politically charged, come up you see a lot of low post/rep people come out of the woodwork and start brawling.  Happens a lot in the politics board too.  

[52-80 19074]

1 hour ago, EuroHorn said:

The brooks guy shot the taser at the cop. It’s in the video. He missed. 

You miss 100% of the shots you don't taze

[Johnny Sack 8397]

What is the underlying felony?

 

[CooterBrown 17901]

Chase Bank is giving all employees a half day off this Friday for observance of BLM and Juneteenth.
 

If they don’t close until 1pm are they making them work 3/5th of a day?

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

2 hours ago, Lechuza said:

 

I love the libtards asking why his family couldn't be called to come pick him up

 

This is way to engage in a rational discussion. Do us all a favor and stay in the Politics board.

[workswithseed 2033]

6 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

This is way to engage in a rational discussion. Do us all a favor and stay in the Politics board.

He fucking hates libertarians.

[JBJ 3648]

40 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What is the underlying felony?

I don't know how they are trying to argue this but the other charges are Aggravated Assault, Criminal Damage, and some failure of oath type crime.

Apparently the DA is also Dwight Howard's uncle.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

He fucking hates libertarians.

Well, I pretty much hate anyone who defines themselves as a political party, so we have that much in common.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Casual Encounter
Yes, I got the joke.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I don't know how they are trying to argue this but the other charges are Aggravated Assault, Criminal Damage, and some failure of oath type crime.

Apparently the DA is also Dwight Howard's uncle.

There’s always an uncle. Wait, wrong board.

[EuroHorn 3204]

20 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I don't know how they are trying to argue this but the other charges are Aggravated Assault, Criminal Damage, and some failure of oath type crime.

Apparently the DA is also Dwight Howard's uncle.

He’s also was the DA over the Ray Lewis fiasco.  

[dcar00 14028]

2 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

The cop pulled his gun as soon as brooks turned to shoot the taser.  It’s clear in The NY Times article I posted above.  They show the sequence in slow motion. Of course in real time it’s pretty quick and who knows what is going through the cops mind. 
 

look, I don’t think the guy should have been shot. But I think this DA has rushed to judgment and said things that are going to cause more problems.  I don’t think the cop should have been charged with felony murder. I think a jury will not convict on that and we’ll get to see more riots. 
 

 

This.  the guy turns while running and fires the taser, when the cop sees the guy turning and pointing the taser, he pulls the gun. the guy is not really aiming but he fires and turns back around almost at the same time. not sure the timing but its probably about a second after that the the cop shoots him.  the DA says that a taser is a deadly weapon.  its really hard to fault the cop here unlike the dumbass in Minn.

[Hank Scorpio 17720]

Always fun to stumble upon the thread that all the racists have scurried off to.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Flaming hot take Hank! 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that that cop did not have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury when he fired his weapon a second after a taser was discharged but missed his head seems unlikely to me if a fair jury is empaneled.  
 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

33 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Always fun to stumble upon the thread that all the racists have scurried off to.

The shit people see racism in these days is something else.  

[workswithseed 2033]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Always fun to stumble upon the thread that all the racists have scurried off to.

You should flag them. 

[Gatorubet 30082]

1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

This.  the guy turns while running and fires the taser, when the cop sees the guy turning and pointing the taser, he pulls the gun. the guy is not really aiming but he fires and turns back around almost at the same time. not sure the timing but its probably about a second after that the the cop shoots him.  the DA says that a taser is a deadly weapon.  its really hard to fault the cop here unlike the dumbass in Minn.

I think this will mean shit at the trial.    I see folks really grasping at this.  We'll see.

[Hate 20103]

The cop is going to get acquitted and the country is going to burn again. Maybe the trial can get postponed until the Coronas is over so at least people aren’t stressed about that.

[Gatorubet 30082]

6 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

Since there are so few shootings that have even the appearance of being unjustifiable, it is pretty rare (and becoming even rarer in recent years).  And I don’t know what makes you say I think it was a “good shot.”  Maybe it’s your mindset that makes you comment on him saying, “I got him.”  That can be taken any number of ways, not all being sinister.

I heard a study early this month that analyzed police misconduct complaints. I think it was from NYC, but I may be mistaken. It found that 1% of cops were responsible for over 40% of the complaints. A significant percentage have no complaints. So, taking 1 out of 100 cops off the street would result in complaints dropping by almost half. Just think what taking 2 or 3 out of 100 would a accomplish  

The problem may actually be a few rotten apples combined with the fact that all professions (with help from their unions) do a piss poor job of disciplining their own. That is true of doctors and nurses all the way down to lawyers and carnival operators. 

 As long as people who do not interact with law enforcement at a level to know their culture believe this shit, they will come out with your type of cop coddling nonsense.    I'm not saying that you should know any better.    The "significant percentage (who) have no complaints" will always cover up for the dirty cops - or you would not get the stats you reference.   Which means, in short, that they are dirty cops as well.   If they were not dirty cops, then you would not have situations like  New Orleans, where they had no bad shoots in 25 years.   New Orleans is not some unusual and isolated cop experience.   That is how they roll everywhere.  Which is why only mob bosses and law enforcement refer to those who notify authorities of the legitimate criminal activity of other members are called "rats" - and why rats need to watch their back if they want to keep on living.         

[Gatorubet 30082]

16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I think this will mean shit at the trial.    I see folks really grasping at this.  We'll see.

Caveat:  the jury instructions will lead this where it is gonna go.   And I do not know Georgia law.  I think you can bring a taser to school there, so I'm not sure how far that deadly taser thing is going to have reach.

[Iceman 2639]

gatorbet doing all he can to make cops sympathetic figures these days.

 

Holy furk.  So objective!

[EuroHorn 3204]

17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Caveat:  the jury instructions will lead this where it is gonna go.   And I do not know Georgia law.  I think you can bring a taser to school there, so I'm not sure how far that deadly taser thing is going to have reach.

Well the DA saying specifically that it’s a deadly weapon under Georgia law certainly doesn’t help things.  Then again, he should know the law. But he is also looking to get re-elected while he is under investigation by the GBI. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

33 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Caveat:  the jury instructions will lead this where it is gonna go.   And I do not know Georgia law.  I think you can bring a taser to school there, so I'm not sure how far that deadly taser thing is going to have reach.

That last sentence is just stupid.  

You do criminal or civil?   Beyond reasonable doubt is a very tough standard.  

Edited June 19, 2020 by Johnny Sack