George Floyd Police killing and protests

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

Isn't it actually necessary to accept as the starting point that everyone in the World except for a few white supremacists and some people on Nick's thinks that police killing of black Americans is a serious issue and examine what is wrong with the belief-systems pf people who want to cavil with the obvious?

[think positive]

<snip> From the forum rules: Members are asked to not act as 'back seat moderators', be it through calling other users to account for alleged infractions, continually pointing out infractions to moderators, or posting gratuitous comments regarding the actions (or lack of action) by the mods team.>

And I’m over the sarcasm. I personally am not happy with the killings, I just disagree with you on the reasons. I’m entitled to that view, others appear to agree with me.

[swoop42]

I don't know all the facts surrounding the Brooks case as I haven't followed it closely enough but I do have some sympathy for the officer who fatally shot him and believe a distinction between this case and the one involving George Floyd is warranted.

I'm uncomfortable that he elected to take the shot and would have preferred that he had just let him flee but I've seen far worse episodes of cop killings that were far more unjustifiable in my view, ones that saw the officer cleared of any wrongdoing by police investigation or found not guilty in a court of law and those outcomes seemed just plainly wrong in my opinion.

As for this case it seemed reasonable that police would respond to someone asleep at the wheel of a car that was presumably stationary in an area cars weren't intended to be. Was he obstructing the drive through entry or parked within a designated car park?

If it was the former then police doing a routine inquiry as to the drivers condition and subsequently conducting a sobriety test would again appear reasonable and expected in that situation.

This is when it begins to get less clear to me.

Why did Brooks resist arrest when at stages the situation appeared calm?

Was he under the influence and this caused him to act aggressively?

Was he worried about the consequences of being arrested so resisted?

Was he dealt with unprofessionally and as a black man feared for his safety at the hands of the police?

Whatever the answer the attempted police arrest looked clumsy with one officer seemingly having the opportunity to taser and subdue Brooks when he was wrestling with his partner.

I'm constantly bemused and annoyed when I hear of fatal police shootings that resulted after the use of a taser supposedly didn't subdue the assailant. The latest example of this in Australia was the shooting on the Westgate bridge recently. I'm no expert on the matter but from what I know if a taser is properly deployed then it doesn't matter how big and strong someone is or what substance they have consumed they will be incapacitated.

So with Brooks resisting and now in a position that he has acquired one of the officers tasers then not surprisingly the situation has escalated dangerously and Brooks has increased his threat level to the officers and potentially innocent bystanders.

As we know he has then attempted to flee, aimed and fired the taser in the general vicinity of the officer before being fatally shot.

So was the officer justified in firing in this situation?

Well he has just been involved in a violent struggle, Brooks is now armed, bystanders could potentially be in danger, the officers adrenaline would be off the charts and he has to make a split second decision based on his training.

On the other hand Brooks is looking to now flee from the situation, he is armed with a taser and not a gun, his firing of the taser didn't impact the officer and having been discharged the weapon is no longer an immediate threat. He is shot in the back.

Should the officer allowed him to flee and looked to apprehend later. Was this what his training stipulates?

All I know is that I'm glad I don't have to decide this officers fate and it's misguided in my opinion to believe this case is as simple as black and white as to who is clearly in the wrong or right.

[think positive]

So well written

[Pies4shaw]

Well he has just been involved in a violent struggle, Brooks is now armed, bystanders could potentially be in danger, the officers adrenaline would be off the charts and he has to make a split second decision based on his training.

According to the prosecutor who laid the charges, Brooks was holding a useless taser, the police well knew that (having fired both bolts at him already) and was shot in the back, twice, while trying to run away.

Not much of a split second decision, was it?

It's not about whether Brooks was a good bloke or a bad bloke. This started as a trivial issue (a guy sleeping in his car in an inconvenient place) and ended up with a death. The question is what's wrong with the policing of trivial matters in the US that they escalate into violent deaths so frequently.

[swoop42]

Well he has just been involved in a violent struggle, Brooks is now armed, bystanders could potentially be in danger, the officers adrenaline would be off the charts and he has to make a split second decision based on his training.

According to the prosecutor who laid the charges, Brooks was holding a useless taser, the police well knew that (having fired both bolts at him already) and was shot in the back, twice, while trying to run away.

Not much of a split second decision, was it?

It's not about whether Brooks was a good bloke or a bad bloke. This started as a trivial issue (a guy sleeping in his car in an inconvenient place) and ended up with a death. The question is what's wrong with the policing of trivial matters in the US that they escalate into violent deaths so frequently.

Did the taser belong to the officer who fired the lethal shots or the other one?

It's plausible isn't it that the officer wasn't aware that the taser had already been rendered useless or under duress simply forgot in the seconds after Brooks freed himself and started to flee.

In this instance at least it's hard to argue that Brooks didn't play a role in escalating the incident above what it should have been.

As to whether this incident should have gotten to the point of arrest in the first place could potentially be at the heart of the matter but if someone is found intoxicated and behind the wheel of a car I would hope and imagine it's standard procedure no matter the skin colour.

[Wokko]

According to the prosecutor who laid the charges, Brooks was holding a useless taser, the police well knew that (having fired both bolts at him already) and was shot in the back, twice, while trying to run away.

Not much of a split second decision, was it?

Been in a few life threatening altercations have you?

[Pies4shaw]

You get a lot of that in clerical work, do you?

[Wokko]

You get a lot of that in clerical work, do you?

So no, you've got no clue. Glad that we've cleared that up.

[Pies4shaw]

So, I guess there must be many, many life-threatening altercations with police in Ballarat that just don’t get reported in the Melbourne press.

[Wokko]

So, I guess there must be many, many life-threatening altercations with police in Ballarat that just don’t get reported in the Melbourne press.

You're the one making claims, not me. Nice try at deflection but it's you saying you know how police should've acted. You're once again arguing from ignorance and then trying to obfuscate when called out.

Reality is you have zero clue what it's like to face any kind of physical danger, and no clue how the body and mind react to that but you want to blame police for actions that in context make perfect sense.

[Wokko]

And for what it's worth, yes I've had someone come at me with a knife and disarmed them. In that moment I could've easily killed them because of the adrenaline rush and feeling of being in mortal danger. These cops would've had a huge adrenaline dump after this guy attacked them and pointed a weapon at them and fired. Trying to insinuate you can make rational, considered decisions in those situations is clueless and moronic in the extreme.

[Pies4shaw]

Read my post again. I repeated what the prosecutor stated as the factual basis for the charge.

[Pies4shaw]

And for what it's worth, yes I've had someone come at me with a knife and disarmed them. In that moment I could've easily killed them because of the adrenaline rush and feeling of being in mortal danger. These cops would've had a huge adrenaline dump after this guy attacked them and pointed a weapon at them and fired. Trying to insinuate you can make rational, considered decisions in those situations is clueless and moronic in the extreme.

Coming at you with a knife, as distinct from running away from you with you aiming a gun at them. You see how the circumstances aren’t comparable? That’s why, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the cop had to be charged with murder.