I think this difference of opinion is what the murder charge will hinge upon. I think they may actually be categorised as 'less than lethal weapons.' Sort of in between lethal and non-lethal.
The DA referred to it as a lethal weapon under Georgia law in another case when law officers used it. Guess its a little different when non-trained felons use it on law officers. Any weapon that can be used to restrain in most cases can also cause death if used improperly. The company that makes Tasers according to some sites had to class it from "non-lethal" to "less than lethal" due to law suits from those who died when it was used. This makes training of its use even more important. Officers are trained in its use, and tased in the process to insure they know what happens and why.
Rayshard Brooks video: Legal experts analyze key moments in shooting This is a nice breakdown of the legal situation in of the shooting, the pre-arrest breakdown is the most interesting to me.
That was a good article. While more practical and sensible courses of action could have been taken by the officers, they were still perfectly entitled to arrest Brooks. I don't think you can use the fact they decided to arrest him as a factor in Brooks resisting arrest, because at the end of the day he was drunk in charge of a motor vehicle and a danger to the public while he was in that car. I don't think he should have been killed, but I also don't want drunk drivers to get off with warnings and no record of that behaviour.
Definitely, even if you put off the arrest for now, you still have to arrest them at some point. And drunk drivers should not be let off routinely.
Thanks for sharing the article. Two points sum up why I don't think the murder charge will stick (and shouldn't even have been filed in the first place): And I don't think there was enough time between Brooks firing and Rolfe returning fire to say with any certainty that there was malicious forethought in Rolfe's actions. I think Rolfe will successfully argue the "feared for my safety/safety of others" line. I believe the DA knows this too, which is why the murder charge is a political stunt in my opinion. I know the DA is an elected official, and any elected official will try to appease the mob, but that wasn't the right thing to do in this case. Filing other charges like assault and violation of oath etc, if there's compelling evidence, then sure. But not murder.
In terms of public relations, not charging a police offer who was involved in a debatable homicide would perhaps be worse. At least he'll be given a fair trial. Unless your saying the criminal justice system needs improvement?
Yeah I saw that confirmed yesterday as well.. some friends who are very involved in the BLM movement posted links saying Hutchinson was ex BTP and were making remarks (insinuations) of why he left. I tried looking today, and think the threads since deleted.
To your point Deadpool, knees and elbows are also deadly weapons. There's a false dilemma going on there with tasers. The only solution that I see is yes, start charging cops with crimes, and let the system figure it out. There should never be immunity from causing an unnecessary death, especially when you're the one with all the power, bullets, your knee on another human's neck, whatever. I think the murder charges won't stick but there may be a plea down to a lesser charge, because even probates being arrested for something as common as DUI don't deserve to be shot through the heart, in the back, by law officers. That's Judge Dredd stuff, not America 2020, I hope.
It's from 2015 from fox, there's a written breakdown here, which whilst still biased, is less so then GP. Video: Anti-police protester undergoes use of force scenario training It's interesting to note that the civil rights leader and Christian preacher, is labeled as an anti police activist. It's almost like gateway pundit is actually involved in propoganda.
Re gateway pundit "The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[3][4] news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes" The Gateway Pundit - Wikipedia
Thanks. I'd rather chew broken glass than get my ideas from there. But you can see how it's carefully packaged and delivered to the people who will eat it right up, and try to regurgitate it to others. Sorry, I'm all sold out on stupid. Remember when people had their own reasoned ideas, and didn't need to get them from a website?
It's creative writing insteads of facts, news without a focus on truth, selling someone what they want to believe for advertising revenue. It's almost as if unrestricted market forces could lead to fluctuations that hurt society.
I know my opinion on the Brooks shooting differs from the consensus here, but I feel it needs stating that I do not endorse The Gateway Pundit. At. All.
Glad to hear it, their wiki page is a wild ride! "Following the 2016 mass shooting at the gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Hoft came out as gay, blamed Barack Obama for the massacre and derided "leftwing gay activists" Sally Kohn and Perez Hilton for blaming the National Rifle Association and Christianity for the attack."
Try again. In other cases where an officer used the Taser the DA framed it as a lethal weapon under their law. The same DA said it was a non-lethal weapon when the suspect attempted to use it on the officer in this case. A taser can be lethal when used by those who are not trained in it’s use, or when used on someone who has underlying conditions that may be affected by it. Officers are trained to protect their weapons from being taken by the suspect. Any attempt to do so can result in death. The officers are in a no-win situation When the suspect resist arrest. They are not trying to hurt the suspect they are trying to restrain them, at the same time protecting themselves from injury by the suspect while preventing the suspect from gaining access to any of their lethal weapons. Not easy, shown in the clip I posted, can result in death for either the suspect or the officer when mistakes are made. The first mistake resisting arrest, puts all lives in danger. Not a good move
Well Comrade, please list approve information sources. The point of the clip was to show that people commenting on a situation, when put in the same situation often react in same way or worse then those they comment on suggesting they could’ve done something differently. As to endorsing information sources. In this day and age one might have to read from a number of different sources even ones they may not agree with to arrive at an understanding. Just as many of the comments here offer insights that may be different, providing another way of looking at something even if one does not agree with them