Protesters burn down Wendy's in Atlanta after police shooting

[Bluespunk]

20 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

it says the Police Chief is trying hard to cover his or her own ass. Perhaps blm can start providing the Black public with training. Don't fight cops when they cuff you. It's a bad idea to take a cops taser. 

No. It says there is a case to answer. 

[evadgib]

36 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The cop has been fired.

 

I think that says enough about what should have been done.

Without due process?

Can anyone confirm whether that applies equally in the other direction? Somehow i doubt it ????

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Without due process?

Can anyone confirm whether that applies equally in the other direction? Somehow i doubt it ????

I'm sure there were good reasons to fire him.

 

If not he can no doubt sue...if cleared of unlawful killing.

 

If not, the point is moot.

 

As to your second question...what are you saying? What do you mean by 'applies in the other direction'?

Edited June 15, 2020 by Bluespunk

[Somtamnication]

I can understand the burning of the White House (happened in the early 1800's) or burning other historical buildings, but a Wendy's? The home of the chocolate frosty? Are you kidding me?

[simple1]

30 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Without due process?

Can anyone confirm whether that applies equally in the other direction? Somehow i doubt it ????

There is video, plus the deceased was shot twice in the back. No doubt legal opinion was provided prior to the man being fired. I would expect the police union to be involved and all costs for the officer's legal representation will be paid. I have read convicted police officers in the US receive their pension, maybe the firing was an effort to start the ball rolling, in case of conviction, to mount a test case to not pay out officers convicted of murder.

[ChouDoufu]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The one thing that's hard to explain is that the guy was shot twice in the back.

not hard at all.  he's running away, he looks back, points the weapon at the officer and fires.  his back is still towards the officer, possibly at an angle, as he is firing and running.

 

watch the wendy's surveillance video.

stand up and try it right now.

 

here's the cctv video, from the local news affiliate youtube channel.  note at 23:22:28 the suspect is running, turns back and you see the discharge as he fires something at the officers over his shoulder.  and he continues to point it as if to fire again until he is shot.  is he holding the taser?  dunno, could be.  could be a gun.  that's a threat that needs to be neutralized.

 

you don't get a free pass shooting something at an officer because you're running away at the time.

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by ChouDoufu

[tgw]

1 hour ago, ChouDoufu said:

not hard at all.  he's running away, he looks back, points the weapon at the officer and fires.  his back is still towards the officer, possibly at an angle, as he is firing and running.

 

watch the wendy's surveillance video.

stand up and try it right now.

 

here's the cctv video, from the local news affiliate youtube channel.  note at 23:22:28 the suspect is running, turns back and you see the discharge as he fires something at the officers over his shoulder.  and he continues to point it as if to fire again until he is shot.  is he holding the taser?  dunno, could be.  could be a gun.  that's a threat that needs to be neutralized.

 

you don't get a free pass shooting something at an officer because you're running away at the time.

 

 

a big, bright yellow light-reflecting gun... sure.

 

when the guy was shot, the officers' lives were not at risk, so it was wrong to shoot him. this wasn't self-defense.

 

I don't think the officer left the police station with the intention of shooting a black man, my guess would be overreaction after the guy resisted arrest and assaulted officers.

 

officers need to be better trained end evaluated for self-control.

 

saying this was "murder" is an exageration.

involuntary manslaughter seems more apt.

but the officer should not have carried a gun, if working for the police, people prone to panic or overreactions should only be able to work in administration or write parking tickets, but not carry a firearm.

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, ChouDoufu said:

not hard at all.  he's running away, he looks back, points the weapon at the officer and fires.  his back is still towards the officer, possibly at an angle, as he is firing and running.

 

watch the wendy's surveillance video.

stand up and try it right now.

 

here's the cctv video, from the local news affiliate youtube channel.  note at 23:22:28 the suspect is running, turns back and you see the discharge as he fires something at the officers over his shoulder.  and he continues to point it as if to fire again until he is shot.  is he holding the taser?  dunno, could be.  could be a gun.  that's a threat that needs to be neutralized.

 

you don't get a free pass shooting something at an officer because you're running away at the time.

 

 

 

I hope for officer's sake it is like that.

 

Now...He was patted down and no weapon was on him. So the excuse of not knowing whether or not a gun was there is gone. This is what I'm hearing on CNN. 

 

If Black's are going to be allowed to pass out in there car and not be guilty of DUI, will the same courtesy be passed on to other ethnicities. Because so many smart black talking heads on TV are saying he should have been given a chance to walk to family's house without arrest.

[ChouDoufu]

 

21 minutes ago, tgw said:

a big, bright yellow light-reflecting gun... sure.

 

when the guy was shot, the officers' lives were not at risk, so it was wrong to shoot him. this wasn't self-defense.

 

I don't think the officer left the police station with the intention of shooting a black man, my guess would be overreaction after the guy resisted arrest and assaulted officers.

 

officers need to be better trained end evaluated for self-control.

 

saying this was "murder" is an exageration.

involuntary manslaughter seems more apt.

but the officer should not have carried a gun, if working for the police, people prone to panic or overreactions should only be able to work in administration or write parking tickets, but not carry a firearm.

color can be deceiving, at night under fluorescent lights, with flashing strobes in the background.  i didn't see yellow, i saw white and shiny, and hard to judge size in motion at distance.

 

you can pick these up for $50, incredibly easy to conceal.  a quick check of pockets may not locate it on a person.  shiny!

 

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Wikijenningsj22-1.jpg

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by ChouDoufu

[ThailandRyan]

49 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Now...He was patted down and no weapon was on him. So the excuse of not knowing whether or not a gun was there is gone. This is what I'm hearing on CNN. 

Unfortunately many Pat downs, and searches of arrestees are botched, and drugs and contraband are either carried into the jail, or stuffed between the back of the seat and the seat cushion itself.  Of course many agencies now have 1 piece plastic rear seats, where mine did not.  There have also been instances where a gun that was secreted on a person was used to shoot an officer inside of a facility.  So to think that what CNN says is entirely correct is very dangerous.  

[EVENKEEL]

14 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Unfortunately many Pat downs, and searches of arrestees are botched, and drugs and contraband are either carried into the jail, or stuffed between the back of the seat and the seat cushion itself.  Of course many agencies now have 1 piece plastic rear seats, where mine did not.  There have also been instances where a gun that was secreted on a person was used to shoot an officer inside of a facility.  So to think that what CNN says is entirely correct is very dangerous.  

Every angle is for the purpose of making cop more and more guilty. Being fired straight out is not a good start.

[ThailandRyan]

8 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Every angle is for the purpose of making cop more and more guilty. Being fired straight out is not a good start.

Unfortunately, unless the Officer is an at will employee you can not be fired immediately.  Suspended and placed off duty with no police powers is the norm.  An investigation is then conducted by internal affairs or a combined police/citizens review board after which the recommendation for termination is made.  However, this can then be appealed before a State Personnel board where it is looked at by legal people including judges and the officers history is examined along with the cause for the recommended termination.  However, many officers resign/quit in lieu of in order to save there retirement benefits.  I do not quite understand how they can say a person is fired outright without due process running it's course, unless of course they were "At Will Employee's"

[tgw]

4 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

color can be deceiving, at night under fluorescent lights, with flashing strobes in the background.  i didn't see yellow, i saw white and shiny, and hard to judge size in motion at distance.

 

you can pick these up for $50, incredibly easy to conceal.  a quick check of pockets may not locate it on a person.  shiny!

 

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Wikijenningsj22-1.jpg

 

"hypothetical threat" only works when someone invades a home.

 

it's clearly not a police officer's duty to neutralize everything that could be a hypothetical threat, otherwise SWAT would be out sniping grannies standing behind windows in unlit rooms because "we couldn't say for sure if granny was holding a weapon or not".  get real.

[neverere]

14 hours ago, kensawadee said:

BS............. Why wait till they kill the cops......... CHANGE THOSE LAWS..............

THOSE RESISTING THE LAW ....... should be shot as a last resort.... and maybe in a NON-Life Threatning shot 'first' .... Just disable them....... Once a hoodlum was shot in the leg. the shock would bring him/her to a more 'agreeable attitude'..... AFTER a month or so of this kind of news these 'militants' would learn to 'OBEY' the law... No Matter what their color..... The same with looters, give security officers the right to shoot looters in the leg or shoulder, so they must go to the hospital (Then they are caught and can be prosecuted) and most of the others will dispurse at seeing it....... Keep a 'armed' security force in stores worried about Looting'

THIS is NOT a color thing really.... Because many White/Arab/Asian/Hispanic are out there 'ignoring' the LAW......

BUT..... because I live in California among many of them (We just had many stores Looted), I can see first hand how the black hoodlems (along with hoodlums of 'other races') use this as a 'smokescreen' to do many illegal activities 'KNOWING' that when caught they can holler 'racism'.........  Racistism has just becone something for hoodlems to use as self-defense .... make a law permitting shooting them in a leg...... Hoodlums only hide behind lax-laws that they can hope to 'defend them'............

Isn't there some kind of language in law generally in the US and other 'civilized nations' that mentions being innocent unless proven guilty ? The police are meant to "protect and serve" Or do I have it all wrong ? Or should we just hang all blacks (Militants. Non-conformists. Rebels.) from the highest tree ? I am not convinced I want to live in your world. I"f you obey all the rules, you’ll miss all the fun. ~ Katharine Hepburn"

[ChouDoufu]

2 hours ago, tgw said:

"hypothetical threat" only works when someone invades a home.

 

it's clearly not a police officer's duty to neutralize everything that could be a hypothetical threat, otherwise SWAT would be out sniping grannies standing behind windows in unlit rooms because "we couldn't say for sure if granny was holding a weapon or not".  get real.

 

unless those strawgrannies are out driving drunk, passing out in their cars, failing sobriety checks, resisting arrest, fighting with the police, stealing tasers, and discharging weapons aimed at police officers, i think they're hypothetically safe.

[torturedsole]

9 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

you don't get a free pass shooting something at an officer because you're running away at the time.

Two law-abiding police officers doing their job.  Could of turned out far worse in the circumstances.  

 

I've no sympathy for the deceased as it was entirely his own decision as to whether he survived or not.  

[riclag]

21 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

Well, at least the real problem has been addressed. A white female police chief has been replaced by a black police chief. Should definitely solve whatever issues may present themselves in the future. I mean, she was a white person, and she was the police chief. Obviously the only option here is resignation.

Minneapolis has a black chief of police! Chicago has a black chief! 

[Jingthing]

19 hours ago, faraday said:

He was committing a crime, & pointed a weapon at a police officer.

 

That's true. I think he actually discharged it. But it was non lethal and they had already searched him and knew he wasn't armed with a lethal weapon. So he was running away. Big deal. They had his car. No reason to shoot someone like that in the back. He's not innocent but he was murdered.

[Jingthing]

10 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

not hard at all.  he's running away, he looks back, points the weapon at the officer and fires.  his back is still towards the officer, possibly at an angle, as he is firing and running.

 

watch the wendy's surveillance video.

stand up and try it right now.

 

here's the cctv video, from the local news affiliate youtube channel.  note at 23:22:28 the suspect is running, turns back and you see the discharge as he fires something at the officers over his shoulder.  and he continues to point it as if to fire again until he is shot.  is he holding the taser?  dunno, could be.  could be a gun.  that's a threat that needs to be neutralized.

 

you don't get a free pass shooting something at an officer because you're running away at the time.

 

 

 

No. No. No.

They knew for a fact he did not have a gun.

They had just searched him.

[neverere]

52 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

unless those strawgrannies are out driving drunk, passing out in their cars, failing sobriety checks, resisting arrest, fighting with the police, stealing tasers, and discharging weapons aimed at police officers, i think they're hypothetically safe.

Yes, that would be grounds for an extrajudicial death sentence. It could save so much in public spending to have some low paid goons bypass the entire justice system And decide who is undesirable on the spot.

[Jingthing]

12 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

A Taser has the ability to render a person temporarily disabled for up to 20 seconds.  During that time a person who turns it on an officer can remove the officers handgun and shoot the officer with his own weapon.  So in this case I see it as a no win situation for the man who took the taser and aimed it at the police officer.

There were two cops. He was running away. The murder victim had no reason to run back and kill cops. That's insane.

 

In this case it seems to me macho police culture was a big factor. Letting a perp run away especially one that had indeed resisted and attacked with a non lethal weapon would be seen as embarrassing. The police need to change their culture. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Jingthing

[sirineou]

55 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There were two cops. He was running away. The murder victim had no reason to run back and kill cops. That's insane.

 

In this case it seems to me macho police culture was a big factor. Letting a perp run away especially one that had indeed resisted and attacked with a non lethal weapon would be seen as embarrassing. The police need to change their culture. 

I am sorry Jingthing but that is not exactly how it happened. 

"Later, the GBI obtained surveillance footage from cameras outside the Wendy's.

“These new videos indicate that during a physical struggle with officers, Brooks obtained one of the officer's Tasers and began to flee from the scene,” the GBI said. “Officers pursued Brooks on foot and during the chase, Brooks turned and pointed the Taser at the officer. The officer fired his weapon, striking Brooks.” "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/15/what-we-know-how-rayshard-brooks-killing-led-protests-atlanta-wendys/3189901001/

So he resisted arrest after a DWI, he fought with the cops , the cops attempted to subdue him by non lethal means , he resisted and took the cops taser away, He started to run away, turned and pointed taser at the cop. 

What would you have done?  You would  stop and said to your partner, this guy is pointing a weapon at me , "what do you think it is".  And your partner would had said. "I dont know bob , looks like your taser" "why don't we let him shoot you and see what it is"  

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by sirineou

[EVENKEEL]

As stated before, guy shoots police with taser, runs back and takes the cop's gun. Cop shoots guy with only a taser will be ruled justifiable.

[MaxYakov]

Arsonists Protesters burn down Wendy's in Atlanta after police shooting

The fact that a black man was shot in the back after aiming a stolen taser (and perhaps shooting the taser) at a white officer, the officer who did the shooting was fired and the police chief resigned is less important than the arson of a Wendy's restaurant following these events.

[EVENKEEL]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There were two cops. He was running away. The murder victim had no reason to run back and kill cops. That's insane.

 

In this case it seems to me macho police culture was a big factor. Letting a perp run away especially one that had indeed resisted and attacked with a non lethal weapon would be seen as embarrassing. The police need to change their culture. 

More insane for guy facing a DUI to resist arrest and assault 2 cops. Why stop there, tase a cop steal his gun and start shooting.

 

It's necessary for police to be macho. Their presence, their mere presence is the first deterrent to violence. 

[buick]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There were two cops. He was running away. The murder victim had no reason to run back and kill cops. That's insane.

if i was the cop's attorney, i would suggest the victim had no reason to steal the taser or, after stealing the taser, discharge the taser towards the officer.  using that as a guide, it makes perfect sense that following a successful taser hit, the victim would surely try to and grab the officer's gun.

 

 

 

[buick]

19 hours ago, simple1 said:

There is video, plus the deceased was shot twice in the back. No doubt legal opinion was provided prior to the man being fired. I would expect the police union to be involved and all costs for the officer's legal representation will be paid. I have read convicted police officers in the US receive their pension, maybe the firing was an effort to start the ball rolling, in case of conviction, to mount a test case to not pay out officers convicted of murder.

i would suggest that the legal opinion rendered was more politically based than legally based. 

[ChouDoufu]

7 minutes ago, buick said:

i would suggest that the legal opinion rendered was more politically based than legally based. 

i would suggest it was based on fear that the city would be burned down.

 

better to throw an officer or two under the bus to appease the mob, knowing they would later be reinstated with full pay and damages.

[ChouDoufu]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What a load.

A taser is not a lethal weapon so there was no attempted murder of the police. 

They certainly knew he was using the stolen taser and not a lethal weapon because they had just searched him for any weapon and he had none. 

Agreed his behavior was really bad. Criminally bad. But not bad enough to possibly make shooting him dead on the back when he was fleeing OK. 

you are welcome to watch the entire 45-minute bodycam video, but you'll notice the cursory search given to a DUI suspect was not at all thorough.  they did not know for a fact he was not armed.

[buick]

i'm going to go out on a limb and say the narrative of a fine family man of 4 will be dashed once the real background of the victim comes out.  i'm going to bet the guy has done jail time.  plus had a DUI (separate from crime that landed him in jail).  that is a big reason why people try and run from the police.  they know they are going back to jail.  it is a hard thing to accept.  running is instinctual - for anyone  (white/black, etc..) - when in the 'go back to jail' scenario.  even though you don't gain anything from it, you wil be caught, so why run ? you are not going to get away, maybe a few minutes, an hour, 24 hrs but won't be long.  and worse, sometimes you end up dead or beat up real bad.  but it still happens all the time.