Charges in Atlanta's Brooks case.

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Della
Princess
Princess
Posts: 21980
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

BionicBunny wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:36 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:33 pm
Mommamia wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:22 pm

You really should do a little research before you spout the same bs comment after comment. A taser is a lethal weapon under GA law.

The Fulton County DA, Paul Howard can't have it both ways.

"Earlier this month, Howard charged six Atlanta police officers with using excessive force in pulling two college students out of a car during a protest. In justifying charges of aggravated assault against some of the officers, Howard said a Taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law.


If true, Rolfe could claim his life was in danger when Brooks aimed the Taser at him, and therefore discharging his handgun was justified."
Tasers have a range of about 15 feet only. Brooks was 18 feet away when he was shot. In the back. While running away. While drunk.
That’s a three foot difference. Do you think the officer was out there with a measuring tape to make sure the guy pointing a weapon at him is close enough to hit him?
Do you think police officers are not given thorough taser training?
306/232

But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
BionicBunny
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8793
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 5:20 pm

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:53 am
BionicBunny wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:36 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:33 pm

Tasers have a range of about 15 feet only. Brooks was 18 feet away when he was shot. In the back. While running away. While drunk.
That’s a three foot difference. Do you think the officer was out there with a measuring tape to make sure the guy pointing a weapon at him is close enough to hit him?
Do you think police officers are not given thorough taser training?
I know the training officers get on tasers. My husband use to be a taser instructor. What’s your point?
Della
Princess
Princess
Posts: 21980
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

BionicBunny wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:14 pm
Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:53 am
BionicBunny wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:36 pm

That’s a three foot difference. Do you think the officer was out there with a measuring tape to make sure the guy pointing a weapon at him is close enough to hit him?
Do you think police officers are not given thorough taser training?
I know the training officers get on tasers. My husband use to be a taser instructor. What’s your point?
Did he teach depth/distance perception & estimation?
306/232

But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
Deleted User 670

Unread post

jessilin0113 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:25 pm
Howard said Brooks and Rolfe were 18 feet 3 inches apart at the time Rolfe’s first shot was fired.
Charges are appropriate. Tasers have a range of, at most, about 15 feet. And the man was running away. These cops were in no danger at all. They cant even pretend they were
And the dumbass cop fired a bullet into one of the cars in the parking lot and there were 2 people in the vehicle! That cop is a menace to society. He should be locked up.
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

jessilin0113 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:33 pm
Mommamia wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:22 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:02 pm

There is no excuse for shooting someone with a non-lethal weapon the back as they are running away. Sometimes they can just let them go. They had his car. They knew who he was. He was drunk and tired. He wasn't gonna get far. You dont have to whip out a gun and shoot for every damn thing.
You really should do a little research before you spout the same bs comment after comment. A taser is a lethal weapon under GA law.

The Fulton County DA, Paul Howard can't have it both ways.

"Earlier this month, Howard charged six Atlanta police officers with using excessive force in pulling two college students out of a car during a protest. In justifying charges of aggravated assault against some of the officers, Howard said a Taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law.


If true, Rolfe could claim his life was in danger when Brooks aimed the Taser at him, and therefore discharging his handgun was justified."
Tasers have a range of about 15 feet only. Brooks was 18 feet away when he was shot. In the back. While running away. While drunk.
Do you honestly think that after having physically fought this man, having been slammed to the ground, having your head smashed into the street, fighting to retain your weapon but having it stolen, all within a minute or so, that this officer could quickly weigh his options while a tazer was pointed at his FACE and analyze that he was THREE FEET outside of where the tazer could reach?

In all of that commotion and fighting, WHILE running trying to catch a man wielding a weapon, he could quickly determine he was 36" outside of the strike zone and that he'd know for sure that weapon wouldn't connect with his head/face/eye/chest.

He'd be able to analyze on the fly that he was perfectly safe and 36" too far. So he should just stop and stand there and see what happens, because he knows exactly how far 3 feet is while he's running and in a struggle with someone intending to cause him bodily harm.

Then the officer is supposed to let him run, armed and drunk, into a residential neighborhood. Or run around a parking lot with other citizens. Armed and drunk. And pumped full if adrenaline.

The tazer was discharged, which Brooks attorney even pointed out in one of his press junkets. He had a still and demonstrated that you could see the wires OVER the officers head.

So ... Essentially, if Brooke's aim was a half inch better, this officer would have taken a tazer to his face, been disabled and his side arm would have been up for grabs to a drunk, violent, adrenaline charged man with a significant criminal history.

I don't think allowing that should be what the officers are expected to do.

Even YOU can't be that far gone enough to take what you said seriously and think that taking zero action is what should have happened. That can't possibly make any sense, EVEN to you.
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
Mommamia
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:32 pm

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:25 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:33 pm
Mommamia wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:22 pm

You really should do a little research before you spout the same bs comment after comment. A taser is a lethal weapon under GA law.

The Fulton County DA, Paul Howard can't have it both ways.

"Earlier this month, Howard charged six Atlanta police officers with using excessive force in pulling two college students out of a car during a protest. In justifying charges of aggravated assault against some of the officers, Howard said a Taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law.


If true, Rolfe could claim his life was in danger when Brooks aimed the Taser at him, and therefore discharging his handgun was justified."
Tasers have a range of about 15 feet only. Brooks was 18 feet away when he was shot. In the back. While running away. While drunk.
Do you honestly think that after having physically fought this man, having been slammed to the ground, having your head smashed into the street, fighting to retain your weapon but having it stolen, all within a minute or so, that this officer could quickly weigh his options while a tazer was pointed at his FACE and analyze that he was THREE FEET outside of where the tazer could reach?

In all of that commotion and fighting, WHILE running trying to catch a man wielding a weapon, he could quickly determine he was 36" outside of the strike zone and that he'd know for sure that weapon wouldn't connect with his head/face/eye/chest.

He'd be able to analyze on the fly that he was perfectly safe and 36" too far. So he should just stop and stand there and see what happens, because he knows exactly how far 3 feet is while he's running and in a struggle with someone intending to cause him bodily harm.

Then the officer is supposed to let him run, armed and drunk, into a residential neighborhood. Or run around a parking lot with other citizens. Armed and drunk. And pumped full if adrenaline.

The tazer was discharged, which Brooks attorney even pointed out in one of his press junkets. He had a still and demonstrated that you could see the wires OVER the officers head.

So ... Essentially, if Brooke's aim was a half inch better, this officer would have taken a tazer to his face, been disabled and his side arm would have been up for grabs to a drunk, violent, adrenaline charged man with a significant criminal history.

I don't think allowing that should be what the officers are expected to do.

Even YOU can't be that far gone enough to take what you said seriously and think that taking zero action is what should have happened. That can't possibly make any sense, EVEN to you.
Oh but she does believe what she says. That's really sad.
BionicBunny
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8793
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 5:20 pm

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:22 pm
BionicBunny wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:14 pm
Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:53 am

Do you think police officers are not given thorough taser training?
I know the training officers get on tasers. My husband use to be a taser instructor. What’s your point?
Did he teach depth/distance perception & estimation?
Ok, so here’s the thing about estimation, it’s just an estimation! It isn’t accuracy. So when you have two objects running it is way more difficult to estimate the distance between the two objects the entire time since one object could run faster or the other could slow down, so the distance and estimation can rapidly change with moving objects. It’s not like two fixed objects being estimated. And when you have a weapon pointed to you it is to be treated as if it can take your life. Three foot difference isn’t much especially with two moving objects. Make sense?
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

Mommamia wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:49 pm
Valentina327 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:25 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:33 pm

Tasers have a range of about 15 feet only. Brooks was 18 feet away when he was shot. In the back. While running away. While drunk.
Do you honestly think that after having physically fought this man, having been slammed to the ground, having your head smashed into the street, fighting to retain your weapon but having it stolen, all within a minute or so, that this officer could quickly weigh his options while a tazer was pointed at his FACE and analyze that he was THREE FEET outside of where the tazer could reach?

In all of that commotion and fighting, WHILE running trying to catch a man wielding a weapon, he could quickly determine he was 36" outside of the strike zone and that he'd know for sure that weapon wouldn't connect with his head/face/eye/chest.

He'd be able to analyze on the fly that he was perfectly safe and 36" too far. So he should just stop and stand there and see what happens, because he knows exactly how far 3 feet is while he's running and in a struggle with someone intending to cause him bodily harm.

Then the officer is supposed to let him run, armed and drunk, into a residential neighborhood. Or run around a parking lot with other citizens. Armed and drunk. And pumped full if adrenaline.

The tazer was discharged, which Brooks attorney even pointed out in one of his press junkets. He had a still and demonstrated that you could see the wires OVER the officers head.

So ... Essentially, if Brooke's aim was a half inch better, this officer would have taken a tazer to his face, been disabled and his side arm would have been up for grabs to a drunk, violent, adrenaline charged man with a significant criminal history.

I don't think allowing that should be what the officers are expected to do.

Even YOU can't be that far gone enough to take what you said seriously and think that taking zero action is what should have happened. That can't possibly make any sense, EVEN to you.
Oh but she does believe what she says. That's really sad.
And frightening ... very frightening.
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
Locked Previous topicNext topic