Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Kasierith]

Did you actually watch the video? The cops we fair with the man up until the shooting. Even throughout the initial struggle, they showed as much restraint as you can when someone is fighting you - even going after your weapon. It wasn't until the gentleman tried ran off with the taser and tried to use that he got shot.
I've watched the video several times and I don't think they intended to harm the man until attempted to use the taser.

The gray area is that he only had a taser - but considered everything that happened before that its hard me straight up call the police out in this incident.

This is where I stand as well. To me this wasn't george floyd 2.0. My best estimation is that they had just disengaged from the fight, the man turned, the man raised a weapon, and the officer opened fire without giving consideration for the danger posed beyond "weapon. React now." Excessice force? Yes. But nothing like in Minneapolis.

I think firing the officer is fine because of that, but far from what even some of my friends have said, that the cops just executed someone for sleeping in the parking lot. And I definitely don't want to see the officers life pretty much come to an end for it.

[Levelfive]

Did you actually watch the video? The cops we fair with the man up until the shooting. Even throughout the initial struggle, they showed as much restraint as you can when someone is fighting you - even going after your weapon. It wasn't until the gentleman tried ran off with the taser and tried to use that he got shot.
I've watched the video several times and I don't think they intended to harm the man until attempted to use the taser.

The gray area is that he only had a taser - but considered everything that happened before that its hard me straight up call the police out in this incident.

This isn't the simple case of a cop getting mad at someone resisting.

I did watch the video. Tasers have about a 10 foot range. They shot him twice in the back, at a distance, killing him, when there were other ways to handle it. I feel like this is an argument relying on what's technically legal, rather than cops' first instincts seeming to be killing people as a first resort.

[Yuujin]

Did you actually watch the video? The cops we fair with the man up until the shooting. Even throughout the initial struggle, they showed as much restraint as you can when someone is fighting you - even going after your weapon. It wasn't until the gentleman tried ran off with the taser and tried to use that he got shot.
I've watched the video several times and I don't think they intended to harm the man until attempted to use the taser.

The gray area is that he only had a taser - but considered everything that happened before that its hard me straight up call the police out in this incident.

This isn't the simple case of a cop getting mad at someone resisting.

We live in a very strange world where people think shooting someone in the back as they are exiting your house post burglary, or firing off blindly at a carjacker as they get away with your car (cause clearly you care so much about your vehicle that you are putting bullet holes in it) is the right course of action to take when someone wrongs you.

The fact that he was even able to wrestle the taser away from the officer is a problem, with TWO OF THEM THERE, and while I certainly don't think they went into that confrontation with the intent to kill the guy, the fact that they lost control of the situation so quickly, which just started out as a guy passed out intoxicated in his car, represents a big problem with our police force when it comes to training. And the fact that they decided to correct the situation, and reestablish control of the situation, by putting bullets in the guys back, well, that's a huge problem.

- - - Updated - - -

I did watch the video. Tasers have about a 10 foot range. They shot him twice in the back, at a distance, killing him, when there were other ways to handle it. I feel like this is an argument relying on what's technically legal, rather than cops' first instincts seeming to be killing people as a first resort.

That bold part about sums up the problem.

[Aurrora]

Tasers have about a 10 foot range. They shot him twice in the back, at a distance, killing him, when there were other ways to handle it.

"At a distance" being less than 10 feet, or did you miss that the cop he fired at was initially attempting to subdue him with his own taser?

That bold part about sums up the problem.

Then you clearly did not watch the video, they tried subdue him physically and were thrown around, they tried to taser him and he stole the weapon, they pursued him attempting to taser him and he was only shot after firing the stolen taser at the officer that was attempting to taser him.

[eschatological]

Don't believe I ever mentioned that, just pointed out that in general they are not required to provide an answer, but my assumption would be that if they alter course into another area of discussion there must be reasonable suspicion as a basis for that tangent.

Though as with all things in the US, your state may vary. As I indicated above don't take deterministic action that can land you in deeper trouble without a lawyer.

The only thing required of you during a traffic stop is your identification.

Even asking if there was a firearm in the car is not something you have to answer.

Refusing to answer is never an indication of suspicion, and numerous Supreme Court cases have determined asserting your rights never meets the bar of probable cause.

If the police have a reason to be concerned for their safety (IE, you answer the firearm question), you can be legally required to step out of the vehicle. That's it. They aren't allowed to search your vehicle, even for the legal firearm. If you have a license, and your firearm license is valid, which they can check themselves via database, that's all that matters.

I was a criminal defense attorney for 5 years, and I also happen to be a brown man whose been pulled over for many bullshit reasons.

Once, a cop told me he needed to search my car because he smelled marijuana. There had been, objectively, no one ever smoking marijuana in the car. I told him he couldn't search the car, and that he didn't smell marijuana because no marijuana had ever been smoked in the car. At this point, you're basically asking how far the cop is going to push it. He could have had me step out of the vehicle, and then (illegally) search the car, and then I woulda had his fucking badge. He backed down because he knew he was making shit up.

When you're black or brown, you make sure your vehicle is in tip-top shape. No garbage on the ground that the cops can say is hiding syringes or drugs, no broken tail lights (which isn't shit that should be handled by cops anyways), nothing. When I was in law school, I was working for the DA's office in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and a cop conducted a search based on seeing a BOX OF Q-TIPS sitting on the back seat. Q-tips are often used to filter liquid heroin into needles. The officer didn't conduct a legal Terry stop, the car pulled over to park on the side of the road, legally, when it saw a cop was following it, and the cop performed a "good Samaritan check" which legally allowed him to check on the people driving the car to see if they were in distress, then he used the Q-Tips to search the car. It was a fucking shitshow.

[Levelfive]

"At a distance" being less than 10 feet, or did you miss that the cop he fired at was initially attempting to subdue him with his own taser?

What does their prior proximity have to do with the fact that he was running away from them when he was shot twice in the back at a distance?

[Aurrora]

What does their prior proximity have to do with the fact that he was running away from them when he was shot twice in the back at a distance?

There was no fucking “distance” the cop that shot him was within range of being shot by the taser because he himself was also attempting to use his taser before being shot at. Do you have eyes?

[Not A Cat]

Do you hear yourself? Tasers can kill but he should have still allowed himself to be tasered. You're armchair quarterbacking a situation that went from peaceful to the suspect being armed in less than 15 seconds, and lethal force wasn't used until he attacked officers with a weapon.

His partner was present and then what? He would have shot him instead? He had already physically overpowered the both of them so what could he do without his taser and an incapacitated partner?

His firing was political, you'll notice the mayor called for his firing, his police chief resigned, and then he was fired.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, guess your friend had enough sense not to steal an officers weapon and try to shoot him with it. Kinda strange how that works.


Are you seriously suggesting that police attempting to put handcuffs on someone after they spent 20 minutes doing a sobriety test is an escalation?

You're justifying lethal force in a situation that doesn't warrant it because of your whataboutisms. The man fired the taser while facing away from the cops, he was trying to flee. He was disengaging. Yes, he should be arrested and charged for assaulting the officers, but he did not deserve to be shot and killed. The officers here weren't competent enough to handle the situation.

You call me armchair quarterback yet here you are assuming his firing was political when clearly he was out of line.

[Kasierith]

The only thing required of you during a traffic stop is your identification.

Even asking if there was a firearm in the car is not something you have to answer.

Refusing to answer is never an indication of suspicion, and numerous Supreme Court cases have determined asserting your rights never meets the bar of probable cause.

If the police have a reason to be concerned for their safety (IE, you answer the firearm question), you can be legally required to step out of the vehicle. That's it. They aren't allowed to search your vehicle, even for the legal firearm. If you have a license, and your firearm license is valid, which they can check themselves via database, that's all that matters.

I was a criminal defense attorney for 5 years, and I also happen to be a brown man whose been pulled over for many bullshit reasons.

Once, a cop told me he needed to search my car because he smelled marijuana. There had been, objectively, no one ever smoking marijuana in the car. I told him he couldn't search the car, and that he didn't smell marijuana because no marijuana had ever been smoked in the car. At this point, you're basically asking how far the cop is going to push it. He could have had me step out of the vehicle, and then (illegally) search the car, and then I woulda had his fucking badge. He backed down because he knew he was making shit up.

When you're black or brown, you make sure your vehicle is in tip-top shape. No garbage on the ground that the cops can say is hiding syringes or drugs, no broken tail lights (which isn't shit that should be handled by cops anyways), nothing. When I was in law school, I was working for the DA's office in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and a cop conducted a search based on seeing a BOX OF Q-TIPS sitting on the back seat. Q-tips are often used to filter liquid heroin into needles. The officer didn't conduct a legal Terry stop, the car pulled over to park on the side of the road, legally, when it saw a cop was following it, and the cop performed a "good Samaritan check" which legally allowed him to check on the people driving the car to see if they were in distress, then he used the Q-Tips to search the car. It was a fucking shitshow.

The police may also control the movements of occupants ie have you step out of the vehicle if they feel that doing so lines up with their reason for the traffic stop, or if they believe there is a matter of safety. That said, i absolutely agree with your points. I was more railing against the very commonly held belief that the best way to address the police is that line, am I being detained. I see it floating around everywhere, and it annoys the everliving hell out of me because the scope of where it helps and where it is relevant is so small, especially when we're discussing traffic stops.

[Levelfive]

There was no fucking “distance” the cop that shot him was within range of being shot by the taser because he himself was also attempting to use his taser before being shot at. Do you have eyes?

Except by the time the cop fumbled his gun out, Brooks was certainly more than 10 feet away. And the cop still shot him, twice, in the back, at a distance. His own police department doesn't even agree with you. I don't understand people's fixation with defending murderers but you do you.

[Aurrora]

And? Does he or does he not have a partner? He was clearly wearing a vest as well...

Asked and answered already but if it needs repeating for you: 1) Tasers aren't non-lethal, they're less-lethal, 1000 people have been killed by police using tasers since the year 2000. Should he allow himself to be shot by a weapon that could have potentially killed him? 2) It was his partner's taser that the suspect had and the suspect had already physically overpowered both of them. So your complaint is what? That he didn't allow himself to be tasered so his partner could then instead be the one to shoot the suspect?

[Kasierith]

Except by the time the cop fumbled his gun out, Brooks was certainly more than 10 feet away. And the cop still shot him, twice, in the back, at a distance. His own police department doesn't even agree with you. I don't understand people's fixation with defending murderers but you do you.

Was there additional footage released? The only video I've seen had the camera knocked off during the struggle. The officer could be seen advancing, then there was the sound of a taser going off and the the firearm was discharged.

[Levelfive]

Was there additional footage released? The only video I've seen had the camera knocked off during the struggle. The officer could be seen advancing, then there was the sound of a taser going off and the the firearm was discharged.

Yes, you can see all of it: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/ra...nts/index.html

[PACOX]

I did watch the video. Tasers have about a 10 foot range. They shot him twice in the back, at a distance, killing him, when there were other ways to handle it. I feel like this is an argument relying on what's technically legal, rather than cops' first instincts seeming to be killing people as a first resort.

I don't agree that their first instinct was to shoot. There's plenty of incidents where the officers first instinct was to shoot, this isn't one of them.

They didn't shoot him when he ran.
They didn't shoot him when he was fighting.
They didn't shoot him when he reached for the taser
They didn't shoot him when he got away with the taser.
The man was shot when he tried to use the taser on them.

The chain of events are unfortunate but make sense. The man didn't have to be shot but in the moment it's makes sense why he got shot. The come was rightfully fired for excessive force not necessarily the use of force.

This incident is not long other incidents where the officer was obviously in the wrong. This is an unfortunate situation that got out of hand.

[eschatological]

The police may also control the movements of occupants ie have you step out of the vehicle if they feel that doing so lines up with their reason for the traffic stop, or if they believe there is a matter of safety. That said, i absolutely agree with your points. I was more railing against the very commonly held belief that the best way to address the police is that line, am I being detained. I see it floating around everywhere, and it annoys the everliving hell out of me because the scope of where it helps and where it is relevant is so small, especially when we're discussing traffic stops.

Yeah, I never told my clients if they're being detained. A traffic stop is in and of itself a type of detainment. You're not allowed to leave while they're assessing your liability for a moving violation.

I always told them to be aware of what they had to answer and not answer. Essentially, there's not much you have to answer. I also told them to never answer affirmatively to the question, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Always make them state it themselves. Don't give an inch.

The problem with these instructions, of course, is that black and brown people using these lines of questioning are often considered hostile, or belligerent, which (in the officer's mind) escalates to a public safety concern allowing them to take you out of the car. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to step out of my car after being pulled over, and how many times it happens to my black/Hispanic clients. And then shit escalates from there, because many people in these communities are nervous and scared around cops just by default (and being nervous can count towards probable cause, though it's rarely the sole reason for cause unless they're seriously shifty). Most of the "resisting" charges come down to my clients telling me "Yeah, I was twitchy, the dude's a cop and had his hand on his gun."

[Aurrora]

Except by the time the cop fumbled his gun out, Brooks was certainly more than 10 feet away. And the cop still shot him, twice, in the back, at a distance. His own police department doesn't even agree with you. I don't understand people's fixation with defending murderers but you do you.

You are so desperately trying to make this cop out to be the bad guy it's pathetic, "fumbled his gun out"? Listen to the body cam footage, there's less than a second between Brooks firing the taser at the officer and the officer returning fire. He didn't run out of the 10 foot range before he was shot, he stumbled away after being shot before falling to the ground.

[Levelfive]

I don't agree that their first instinct was to shoot. There's plenty of incidents where the officers first instinct was to shoot, this isn't one of them.

They didn't shoot him when he ran.
They didn't shoot him when he was fighting.
They didn't shoot him when he reached for the taser
They didn't shoot him when he got away with the taser.
The man was shot when he tried to use the taser on them.

The chain of events are unfortunate but make sense. The man didn't have to be shot but in the moment it's makes sense why he got shot. The come was rightfully fired for excessive force not necessarily the use of force.

This incident is not long other incidents where the officer was obviously in the wrong. This is an unfortunate situation that got out of hand.

Ok, a couple things--one, that CANNOT be the bar, where they get credit for not shooting him sooner; two, their first instinct when dealing with a man who was running away, turned around to try to tase them, missed and kept running, was absolutely to kill--he throws his taser and gets his gun out and shoots him twice in the back at a distance. There was no imminent threat of death, which means there was no reason to kill him. It was not the logical outcome; it does not make sense.

[Endus]

Asked and answered already but if it needs repeating for you: 1) Tasers aren't non-lethal, they're less-lethal, 1000 people have been killed by police using tasers since the year 2000.

Then using a taser is only warranted, by your own argument, in situations where lethal force is justified.

That was not the case when they tried to use the taser on this guy.

Cops don't get to have it both ways. Either tasers and such are subdual tactics that you can use for safety and with the expectation that their use is non-lethal, or they're potentially lethal force that you need as much justification to use as your sidearm. You can't treat someone using such a device on you as if it's lethal force if you don't use it as if it's lethal force.

Should he allow himself to be shot by a weapon that could have potentially killed him?

In this case, if he hadn't been chasing the guy, this wouldn't have been the case. Seems like not chasing him was the safer option for everyone.

They were bothering the guy because he was asleep in his car while inebriated. This was not a violent criminal. He hadn't even been driving (that we know of, at least). Why was force ever on the table for anything, here?

[Kellhound]

I have a friend, who drove into a drive through, after crashing... got out and peed on the intercom, then went back and fell asleep. Did not get shot to death... never got into a predicament of going from sleep, to killed...

Darren McFadden didn’t get killed... maybe if the cop called for back up, that kid wouldn’t be dead:


Police escalated the issue... police lost their taser... the kid is dead.

Looks to me like two officers were interacting with him professionally until he quite clearly resisted arrest without cause. He then stole a taser while in a physical altercation with the police. He then runs, turns to shot the officer in pursuit with it, and is shot. Had that been me (middle aged white guy), I would have been shot as well, and my family would be blaming my stupid ass for causing it. Maybe if that "kid" had simply allowed himself to be arrested for drunk driving, he would be alive. Or are you suggesting that if a black male starts to resist arrest the police should just let him go? I know that's what I would do these days if I was one.

[Yuujin]

Pretty hilarious to see the usual suspects who defend the police suddenly concerned about the potential lethality of tasers, but only when they are used on cops.