Killington is Woke

[madhatter]

It's hard to believe the stunning level of ignorance on display by some in this thread. In the midst of all these protests where black people are merely asking for their lives to matter, you have a black man in Atlanta, Rayshard Brooks, being fatally shot by police as he was running away. Is it any wonder that protests in Altanta turned violent? I'm not saying I agree with violent protests or looting, but really, what would you do if you lived in a world where you could get shot by police for having the wrong color skin, and nobody around you would listen?

Black lives matter. If your response to that is "all lives matter" then you're just not listening. If your response to these largely peaceful protests is that the protesters are to blame for looting then you're not listening. Stop being distracted by propaganda and political bias. These people have a point, and if you can't see that, you're practicing willful ignorance.

he got shot cuz he resisted arrest, took the cops tazer and aimed it at the cop...

play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

[easyrider16]

he got shot cuz he resisted arrest, took the cops tazer and aimed it at the cop...

Yes. He aimed a non-lethal weapon at a cop and got shot and killed for it. He was also likely drunk and not in his right state of mind, and the cops had their own tazers they could have used and chose to exercise lethal force instead. If you don't see a problem with police shooting a drunk black man wielding a non-lethal weapon, perhaps you need to re-examine your own biases.

Here's a link to the video: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/raysh ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Btw, it's been ruled a homicide, so I'd say the authorities do not agree with your assessment. And let's remember that this is just one example. There are many more that happened just in the past year.

[ski]

i think you should bring it back so Angus can remember what he posted. We all know a deleted/moderated post is not really deleted.[/quote][/quote]

[madhatter]

he got shot cuz he resisted arrest, took the cops tazer and aimed it at the cop...

Yes. He aimed a non-lethal weapon at a cop and got shot and killed for it. He was also likely drunk and not in his right state of mind, and the cops had their own tazers they could have used and chose to exercise lethal force instead. If you don't see a problem with police shooting a drunk black man wielding a non-lethal weapon, perhaps you need to re-examine your own biases. I'd prefer that when people break the law and police take them into custody that they follow the law....I'd also prefer that the police follow the law... but honestly? it's 8 billion minus one...I don't really care...people die and are killed every day...horrible things happen every day...I have nothing to do with any of it...I don't know any of the people involved...and none of it is "my" problem to "see"...

there are already laws covering both the action of the cop and the action of the deceased...none of that stopped him from being killed...THAT is the problem... and more laws aren't going to fix it...only adherence to the rule of law will stop that...and that's where the focus should be...

does anyone deserve to die for resisting arrest? probably not...is the guy still dead? yep...had he not resisted arrest and accepted the fact that he was under arrest for DUI would he still be alive? yes...being drunk isn't an excuse for anything...yer right that the cops could have done a number of things differently...same can be said for the person who got the DUI...

Btw, it's been ruled a homicide, so I'd say the authorities do not agree with your assessment.I didn't "assess" anything...I accurately described what I saw...it's up to a court to "assess"...

Here's a link to the video: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/raysh ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

read what I said...all of it is true...yep, the cop is charged w homicide...the other guy is still dead tho right? charges aren't going to bring him back to life...at least two lives are ruined ( they may also have families that are affected)

if society is interested in "saving lives" why is there zero spotlight on what citizens can do to protect themselves? ( follow the law, not resist arrest etc) it's always what cops should do ( follow the law, not use force etc)...the easiest way to save that man's life is for him to follow the law...

there is zero evidence to support he was shot for " having the wrong color skin"...it may turn out that there was a racial component...right now none of the evidence suggests that...

the evidence shows that the guy being arrested lost control, the officers doing the arresting lost control...someone ended up dead...at least one person broke the law, a court of law will decide who did what and what any sentence might be...

[Mister Moose]

Yes. He aimed a non-lethal weapon at a cop and got shot and killed for it. He was also likely drunk and not in his right state of mind, and the cops had their own tazers they could have used and chose to exercise lethal force instead. If you don't see a problem with police shooting a drunk black man wielding a non-lethal weapon, perhaps you need to re-examine your own biases.

Here's a link to the video: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/raysh ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Btw, it's been ruled a homicide, so I'd say the authorities do not agree with your assessment. And let's remember that this is just one example. There are many more that happened just in the past year.

There's a lot that's misleading in your post.

1) He didn't just aim a non lethal weapon at a cop (a very bad move under any circumstances to aim any weapon at a cop). He rapidly aimed an unidentified weapon held in his palm with a pistol like appearance while running 15 feet (Less than a car length, look at your linked video) from the cop. The cop had a split second to decide if his life was worth a guess on that weapon.

2) This did not happen in church, as a passerby, or in some other normal circumstance of everyday life. This happened after an arrest, a struggle, stealing an officer's weapon, and flight.

3) Drunk is not an excuse for threatening behavior, which is exactly what aiming a weapon at a cop is. Drunk doesn't make it better, it makes it worse, as the suspect is now even more irrational and unpredictable.

4) Being ruled a homicide does in no way make it criminal. It means it's not suicide or natural causes.

There's a lot of shoulda woulda coulda. Wendys could have called an EMT, not the cops. The cops could have chased less aggressively, he wasn't a suspect violent crime. Well, other than taking an officers weapon. He really crossed a line there. The cop should have seen the bright yellow taser vs a firearm.

I have trouble unilaterally blaming the cop who was probably trained to fire if a weapon was being drawn down on him in close proximity. I don't know the odds of a tazer being fatal if taken in the eye, or some other complicating factor. I don't think the officer is required to accept serious personal injury.

As usual the case is being tried in the press and the widow's lawyer is already bleating on any airwaves that will carry him. It reeks of a civil suit money grab by the lawyer. It's a very one sided argument, with no statements or complete evidence.

I'm not blind to police brutality, corruption, or poor judgement. There needs to be vigilance and proper controls. But if you take away a cop's right to defend himself, you won't have any cops. My 50/50 scale swings towards the cop in that situation.

[easyrider16]

1) He didn't just aim a non lethal weapon at a cop (a very bad move under any circumstances to aim any weapon at a cop). He aimed an unidentified weapon held in his palm with a pistol like appearance while running 15 feet (Less than a car length, look at your linked video) from the cop.

I stopped reading right here because you are already wrong. He took the stun gun from the other cop, so the cop who shot him very well knew exactly what he was holding. The cop who shot him had his own stun gun and dropped it, grabbed his service weapon, and shot the man twice in the back.

Grousing about this one incident is sort of beside the point. Like I said, there are many other examples of black people being shot by police in just this past year. The statistics clearly show black people die at the hands of police more frequently than any other group. There is a problem here, and the people protesting have a point.

[madhatter]

1) He didn't just aim a non lethal weapon at a cop (a very bad move under any circumstances to aim any weapon at a cop). He aimed an unidentified weapon held in his palm with a pistol like appearance while running 15 feet (Less than a car length, look at your linked video) from the cop.

I stopped reading right here because you are already wrong. He took the stun gun from the other cop, so the cop who shot him very well knew exactly what he was holding. The cop who shot him had his own stun gun and dropped it, grabbed his service weapon, and shot the man twice in the back. I think you're being willfully ignorant, and seeing only what you want to see.

Grousing about this one incident is sort of beside the point. Like I said, there are many other examples of black people being shot by police in just this past year. The statistics clearly show black people die at the hands of police more frequently than any other group. There is a problem here, and the people protesting have a point.

ya sure?

[easyrider16]

ya sure?

Yes.

MORE THAN 1,000 UNARMED people died as a result of police harm between 2013 and 2019, according to data from Mapping Police Violence. About a third of them were black.

About 17% of the black people who died as a result of police harm were unarmed, a larger share than any other racial group and about 1.3 times more than the average of 13%.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... e-of-color" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mister Moose]

1) He didn't just aim a non lethal weapon at a cop (a very bad move under any circumstances to aim any weapon at a cop). He aimed an unidentified weapon held in his palm with a pistol like appearance while running 15 feet (Less than a car length, look at your linked video) from the cop.

I stopped reading right here because you are already wrong. He took the stun gun from the cop, so the cop very well knew exactly what he was holding. The cop had his own stun gun and dropped it, grabbed his service weapon, and shot the man twice in the back.

I think you're being willfully ignorant, and seeing only what you want to see.

The video was blurry, but in any event, you're still asking the cop to assume in a split second the rapid turn and point was the same weapon he had taken from the other cop. You're ignoring that your training takes over when in a split second situation. You simply don't have time to sit in a chair, watch a video frame by frame and wonder what should have been the perfect response to each event. You have an assailant, he turns with a weapon at you while in pursuit, rapidly and in close quarters.

I don't know what you mean by "See only what I want to see". I don't want to see any of this.

[easyrider16]

You are being obtuse. From my last link:

Another video filmed by a bystander in the drive-thru begins shortly after the struggle starts and shows Brooks grab the stun gun.

"Hands off the f***ing Taser," one of the officers says. "Hands off the Taser."

The struggle continues as one of the officers says, "Stop fighting."

Eventually, Brooks gets hold of the Taser and breaks free. As he stands up, he hits Rolfe in the face.

Rolfe steps back and unsheaths his own Taser, which he fires on Brooks as the man runs away, with Rolfe close behind.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/raysh ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be clear - police should not be unholstering a service weapon in response to a suspect fleeing or wielding a non-lethal weapon like a tazer, and it's hard to see how the shooting officer didn't realize it was a tazer in his hand unless you start making up facts.

[madhatter]

ya sure?

Yes.

MORE THAN 1,000 UNARMED people died as a result of police harm between 2013 and 2019, according to data from Mapping Police Violence. About a third of them were black.

About 17% of the black people who died as a result of police harm were unarmed, 83% WERE armeda larger share than any other racial group and about 1.3 times more than the average of 13%.4% difference...those statistics don't "clearly" show anything that you claim...if anything they refute it...

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... e-of-color" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

most of them are NOT black....2/3 in fact...you can create whatever spin you'd like...but when people are killed by cops it's most frequently NOT a black person who is killed...

you also ignored everything I posted above...

you aren't interested in a conversation or a solution...you are interested in a narrative...

[easyrider16]

@MH I'm sorry but I'm not interested in further dialog with you. You've clearly misinterpreted the statistics and I can't have a conversation with someone who can't seem to even understand the basic facts of the matter.

[madhatter]

@MH I'm sorry but I'm not interested in further dialog with you. You've clearly misinterpreted it's called MATH...the statistics and I can't have a conversation with someone who can't seem to even understand the basic facts of the matter.

yeah that MUST be it...believe whatever you want but you didn't provide any statistics to back up your assertions...the closest you came was showing a mere 4% difference between blacks and " all other races combined"... you also continue to ignore personal responsibility and what an individual can do to prevent them selves from getting into a situation where they might be shot by a cop...

so spare me your lecture on "basic facts"... you haven't provided any " basic facts" let alone shown any sort of comprehension...but you are right about being unable to have a conversation... the reason is because you aren't willing to have one...you are only interested in furthering a narrative...

none of your data supports that narrative...

[Mister Moose]

You are being obtuse. From my last link:

Another video filmed by a bystander in the drive-thru begins shortly after the struggle starts and shows Brooks grab the stun gun.
"Hands off the f***ing Taser," one of the officers says. "Hands off the Taser."
The struggle continues as one of the officers says, "Stop fighting."
Eventually, Brooks gets hold of the Taser and breaks free. As he stands up, he hits Rolfe in the face.
Rolfe steps back and unsheaths his own Taser, which he fires on Brooks as the man runs away, with Rolfe close behind.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/raysh ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be clear - police should not be unholstering a service weapon in response to a suspect fleeing or wielding a non-lethal weapon like a tazer, and it's hard to see how the shooting officer didn't realize it was a tazer in his hand unless you start making up facts.

A quick google search yields this:

One common type of situation which may face an officer is where a
person resists arrest. Under the present law it is important that the
officer know whether the arrestee has committed a misdemeanor or a
felony. When the officer seeks to arrest a misdemeanant he is prohibited
in most states from using deadly force.3 The reason for this limitation
upon the officer is the fact that a misdemeanor is a minor crime, and
resistance which does not threaten the arresting officer with death or
serious bodily harm is not sufficient to warrant the taking of the misdemeanant's life.4
There are a few states, however, in which the courts have upheld the
officer's right to use deadly force in making the arrest of a resisting misdemeanant. 5 The reasoning behind these decisions seems to be that it is
the duty of the officer to be the aggressor, and hence he must put forth
sufficient force to make the arrest.6 However, since the great majority of
states have forbidden the use of deadly force in making the arrest of a
misdemeanant the officer would be best advised not to use his gun in
such a situation unless he is certain that his state is one in which such
is authorized.
Where the person who is resisting arrest has committed a felony and
the arrest is a proper one, the officer may use deadly force if its use is
necessary to subdue the arrestee.7 In using such force, however, it is
important to remember two things: first, make sure that the arrestee is
aware of the fact that he is being arrested by an officer of the law,8 and
second, that there is no other way to make the arrest or subdue the
criminal but to use such force. An officer is not justified in killing a
felon if the arrest could have been made without the use of such extreme
force.9
When a person resists arrest the question of self-defense on the part
of the officer often arises. Whenever the actions of the arrestee (regardless of whether he is a misdemeanant or a felon) are of such a nature
as to create an honest belief in the mind of the officer that he is in danger
of death or great bodily harm he is justified in killing the arrestee in
self-defense. 10 There are two requirements for the exercise of this privilege: that the circumstances be such as to reasonably warrant the belief
that the officer's life is threatened, and that he honestly believes that
such danger exists.i
'
Fleeing Arrest
A different problem exists when a person flees from an officer who
seeks to arrest him. Here again it is important for the officer to know
whether the arrestee has committed a felony or a misdemeanor. When
the person being questioned or arrested has been guilty of a misdemeanor
the officer is never justified in using deadly force to stop his flight.' 2
Even if the officer fires at the fugitive merely to frighten him into halting he will not be excused if one of the bullets accidently hits him.'3 In
a situation of this type the officer would be well advised to keep his
revolver in his holster.
The situation is different where the fugitive is a felon. When the
officer knows that the person whom he seeks to arrest has been guilty of
a felony the officer may use his gun in order to stop the flight.' 4 But
even the life of a felon is not to be treated lightly, and the law will not
excuse the use of deadly force against him unless the arrest could not
be made without it.15
https://scholarlycommons.law.northweste ... ntext=jclc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you have a misdemeanor, drunk driving. Turns into a felony, taking the officers weapon. Then he rapidly turns and points the weapon at the officer. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but there's a lot here that does not support your contention that "police should not be unholstering a service weapon in response to a suspect fleeing"

As I said, it's being tried in the press. There's a reason we have a court system (flawed as it is). The press is a very poor jury.

[easyrider16]

Nice googling. I'll highlight the part that clearly indicates this use of force was unjustified:

An officer is not justified in killing a
felon if the arrest could have been made without the use of such extreme
force.

The guy had a tazer. There were multiple cops on scene. There was no other way to subdue him except deadly force? Really?

I concur that the officers have a right to trial by jury. But we as the public also have a duty to review what police are doing, how they are exercising the use of force, and make decisions about how our government should address these issues. This is something we should all be talking about. It's uncomfortable, but necessary.