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

[Aurrora]

I've heard exactly this same argument 20 times today so I assume it was churned out of the conservative factory for the soldiers to diseminate. It's especially frustrating because it's an argument that doesn't make any sense, yet it's repeated all the same. It makes me doubt whether I should bother to believe any of the rest of what you've posted.

There is absolutely no connection between the assault charge and a taser not being cause for lethal force. They are entirely different situations. Nothing in the assault charge requires that the weapon be lethal nor does assault have anything to do with threat to life. Spitting on someone is assault, but spitting on someone is not justification for them shooting you. Because there is no connection between these things.

There is 100% connection between the aggravated assault charge and the justification for Rolfe's use of his weapon, the wording of Atlanta PD's authorization for use of deadly force is exactly the same as Georgia's aggravated assault law.

"With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or"

Atlanta PD authorization for use of deadly force:
"He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others"

[Ooid]

he attacked a woman and then was ejected from the protester group, then pulled a gun and people tried to rush him when he shot one. it was all him. enjoy prison. its all on video.

This was actually somewhat hard to find but here’s the video I’m basing my position off of. To me he was leaving and they kept following him.

This is footage of the shooting so if that will bother you please keep that in mind and don’t click it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/meganrabu...35796949213184

[Machismo]

This was actually somewhat hard to find but here’s the video I’m basing my position off of. To me he was leaving and they kept following him.

This is footage of the shooting so if that will bother you please keep that in mind and don’t click it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/meganrabu...35796949213184

In that you see people clearly calling him out for his actions before the moment when the camera actually turns to him. Picking a fight tends to make it far more difficult to claim self defense.

[eschatological]

There is 100% connection between the aggravated assault charge and the justification for Rolfe's use of his weapon, the wording of Atlanta PD's authorization for use if deadly force is exactly the same as Georgia's aggravated assault law.

"With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or"

Atlanta PD authorization for use of deadly force:
"He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others"

You literally have 0 understanding of this law. The law actually states:

(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;

(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or

(3) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.

Like I said, aggravated assault can be used for literally beating a person up with your fists.

[Aurrora]

You literally have 0 understanding of this law. The law actually states:



Like I said, aggravated assault can be used for literally beating a person up with your fists.

What's there not to understand? Item 2 is the only one that is applicable to this case. Unless you're alleging that the officer discharged his taser with the intent to murder, rape or rob the protesters. Pretty sure tasers aren't considered firearms and they weren't firing from within a motor vehicle so item 3 is straight out.

[cubby]

Like I said...he can...I just doubt very much that he will.

America is just coming around to the idea of putting cops on trial for murder.

Pushing for the death penalty right now is probably a bridge too far for most.

Especially when getting him convicted of the murder means a Life sentence anyway. That's a minimum of 25 years before he's even eligible for parole. And thats not considering any of the other charges....some of which may be served concurrently (specifically the ones directly related to Brooks)...but the other charges might be consecutive.

Very good point. Regardless of his actions, you're right in that America overall might not be ready for putting a cop on the electric chair. 25 years min would be just fine, plus consecutive sentences on the lesser charges.

[eschatological]

What's there not to understand? Item 2 is the only one that is applicable to this case. Unless you're alleging that the officer discharged his taser with the intent to murder, rape or rob the protesters. Pretty sure tasers aren't considered firearms and they weren't firing from within a motor vehicle so item 3 is straight out.

For one, you can be convicted of aggravated assault with any object. The "deadly weapon" label the lawyer insists on is merely a deliberate misstatement by the defense attorney to make it seem like we need to have a deadly weapon for this charge to stick. You could beat a person with a foam pool noodle, and be convicted of aggravated assault if it "actually does result in serious bodily harm." And as people in this thread have been arguing for a damn long while - tasers are very much dangerous. All the prosecutor needs to do in this case is show that the taser can reasonably result or actually has resulted in the past (and yes, past uses are relevant here) serious bodily harm.

And like I said, prosecutors regularly overcharge. You've totally ignored my post on the bullshit sources you used, as is a normal right wing tactic, so I'll explain it again:

Prosecutors regularly overcharge to have greater leverage in plea negotiations, and/or because in many jurisdictions you can convict on a lesser included charge (which in this case would be normal assault & battery). This is standard prosecutorial procedure, and maybe you find it shitty, but in 99.9% of cases it's being used by prosecutors to protect cops and over-prosecute young black men, so I doubt you're making a good faith argument about this shitty practice that prosecutors use all. the. goddamn. time.

- - - Updated - - -

For one, you can be convicted of aggravated assault with any object. The "deadly weapon" label the lawyer insists on is merely a deliberate misstatement by the defense attorney to make it seem like we need to have a deadly weapon for this charge to stick. You could beat a person with a foam pool noodle, and be convicted of aggravated assault if it "actually does result in serious bodily harm." And as people in this thread have been arguing for a damn long while - tasers are very much dangerous. All the prosecutor needs to do in this case is show that the taser can reasonably result or actually has resulted in the past (and yes, past uses are relevant here) serious bodily harm..

Just to further expand on this: if a civilian used a taser on another citizen, they sure as shit would be charged with aggravated assault if it wasn't in self defense. That's why it's considered a weapon.

[Endus]

And like I said, prosecutors regularly overcharge. You've totally ignored my post on the bullshit sources you used, as is a normal right wing tactic, so I'll explain it again:

Prosecutors regularly overcharge to have greater leverage in plea negotiations, and/or because in many jurisdictions you can convict on a lesser included charge (which in this case would be normal assault & battery). This is standard prosecutorial procedure, and maybe you find it shitty, but in 99.9% of cases it's being used by prosecutors to protect cops and over-prosecute young black men, so I doubt you're making a good faith argument about this shitty practice that prosecutors use all. the. goddamn. time.

People seem to weirdly overlook that overcharging is a standard practice, and doesn't mean the accused gets away with it if that case fails to be made. It means he pleas to a lower charge to get the DA to ease up, or the jury agrees that the accused committed a crime but a lower one than originally charged with (and often, those charges are all bundled in automatically by the DA, to make doing so easy).

The idea that a prosecutor charges a guy with Murder 1 and a jury would say "we see Murder in the Second Degree, but not first, so the accused is free to go and can never be charged over this incident because of double indemnity", it's bafflingly stupid, but the idea keeps cropping up.

Prosecutors aren't in pursuit (directly) of justice. They are explicitly intended to take the most aggressive approach possible. For the same reason the defense is supposed to make every effort to clear their client. Because it's an antagonistic system, and both serve a role; justice and correct decisions by a judge and jury are supposed to emerge out from that antagonism and debate. Prosecutors overcharge for the same reason that defense attorneys enter a plea of "not guilty".

[Aurrora]

For one, you can be convicted of aggravated assault with any object. The "deadly weapon" label the lawyer insists on is merely a deliberate misstatement by the defense attorney to make it seem like we need to have a deadly weapon for this charge to stick. You could beat a person with a foam pool noodle, and be convicted of aggravated assault if it "actually does result in serious bodily harm." And as people in this thread have been arguing for a damn long while - tasers are very much dangerous. All the prosecutor needs to do in this case is show that the taser can reasonably result or actually has resulted in the past (and yes, past uses are relevant here) serious bodily harm.

And like I said, prosecutors regularly overcharge. You've totally ignored my post on the bullshit sources you used, as is a normal right wing tactic, so I'll explain it again:

Prosecutors regularly overcharge to have greater leverage in plea negotiations, and/or because in many jurisdictions you can convict on a lesser included charge (which in this case would be normal assault & battery). This is standard prosecutorial procedure, and maybe you find it shitty, but in 99.9% of cases it's being used by prosecutors to protect cops and over-prosecute young black men, so I doubt you're making a good faith argument about this shitty practice that prosecutors use all. the. goddamn. time.

- - - Updated - - -



Just to further expand on this: if a civilian used a taser on another citizen, they sure as shit would be charged with aggravated assault if it wasn't in self defense. That's why it's considered a weapon.

Precisely, it's not relevant if it's a deadly weapon or not because of the second half of item 2 "any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or" which in it's entirety is the Atlanta PD's justification of use of lethal force policy. Therefor officer was justified. Endus has been going on for days about how lethal force wasn't justified because it was just a taser.

[eschatological]

Precisely, it's not relevant if it's a deadly weapon or not because of the second half of item 2 "any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or" which in it's entirety is the Atlanta PD's justification of use of lethal force policy. Therefor officer was justified. Endus has been going on for days about how lethal force wasn't justified because it was just a taser.

A) You're switching the focus from the taser case from a few weeks ago, to the Brooks murder this past week. I assume you concede that those cops can be charged with aggravated assault, then?

B) That's why the charge in the Brooks felony murder case includes the fact that the cop knew there was no more "shots" left in the taser, and thus couldn't reasonably assume he was about to suffer serious bodily harm. That'll be on the prosecutor to prove at trial.

Edit: There's an analogous situation in civilian criminal charges. If you take a gun that you know is unloaded to a crime, even if you brandish it, just having the gun can't be used against you to prove you intended to cause serious bodily harm. The gun being unloaded speaks to your lack of intent to cause bodily harm. I assume what the prosecutor will try to do is assert that the converse is true: if you know a weapon being pointed at you is empty, you know you're not in fear of reasonable bodily harm, and thus, deadly force isn't authorized.

[Aurrora]

A) You're switching the focus from the taser case from a few weeks ago, to the Brooks murder this past week. I assume you concede that those cops can be charged with aggravated assault, then?

B) That's why the charge in the Brooks felony murder case includes the fact that the cop knew there was no more "shots" left in the taser, and thus couldn't reasonably assume he was about to suffer serious bodily harm. That'll be on the prosecutor to prove at trial.

Edit: There's an analogous situation in civilian criminal charges. If you take a gun that you know is unloaded to a crime, even if you brandish it, just having the gun can't be used against you to prove you intended to cause serious bodily harm. The gun being unloaded speaks to your lack of intent to cause bodily harm. I assume what the prosecutor will try to do is assert that the converse is true: if you know a weapon being pointed at you is empty, you know you're not in fear of reasonable bodily harm, and thus, deadly force isn't authorized.

A) Sure, why not? I'm only pointing out that there are clear double standards from the DA.

B) Do you have some source that actually shows Rolfe knew there were no shots left in the taser, or actual proof there were no shots left in the taser? Because I can only see one clear deploy from the video.

[eschatological]

A) Sure, why not? I'm only pointing out that there are clear double standards from the DA.

B) Do you have some source that actually shows Rolfe knew there were no shots left in the taser, or actual proof there were no shots left in the taser? Because I can only see one clear deploy from the video.

It's charged in the criminal charges. You don't get to just make up statements of fact like that, in an actual criminal indictment. I assume the prosecutor has some evidence of it and that's why the dude is facing felony murder charges, which can carry the death penalty.

It passed a grand jury (I assume?) but that's not hard. We'll see if he can prove it in court. Maybe the cop admitted to it in the police report, or maybe the other cop testified as such that both shots were fired off.

Weirdly enough, proof isn't required til trial, for us public plebes. It'll be handed over to the defense at some point, at which point I'm sure the officer's attorney can comment/try and refute it in public.

[Egomaniac]

I like how it changed from "Tasers only fire a single shot" to "The officer knew Brooks had already deployed both shots", it certainly isn't apparent from the video that both charges of the taser have been deployed.

They had their experts go through all of the video evidence. That specific model of taser has two shots...not all tasers do.

Where's this alleged kick? Seems like a convenient still image made to look like a kick. Based on the image it had to have happened when Rolfe ran up to Brooks but in the video you can clearly see he runs up and bends down, kinda hard to bend down if you're delivering a kick.
Where's an officer standing on Brooks shoulder?

You can clearly see Rolfe run back to his vehicle to get the first aid kit after only a minute has passed since Brooks went down.

Watch this video...the DA will walk you through the whole thing.

[Endus]

Precisely, it's not relevant if it's a deadly weapon or not because of the second half of item 2 "any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or" which in it's entirety is the Atlanta PD's justification of use of lethal force policy. Therefor officer was justified. Endus has been going on for days about how lethal force wasn't justified because it was just a taser.

Then you weren't paying attention.

My actual point was that using the officers using the taser on the guy in the first place was itself an aggravated assault, and that makes everything he did afterwards action in his own self-defense, which justifies it accordingly.

If you make the argument that taser use amounts to aggravated assault, Brooks was entitled to defend himself from an unlawful assault, even by police officers. If you want to argue that their use of the weapon was not an aggravated assault, then you can't treat Brooks' use as one either, which means the officers had no cause to respond with lethal force.

Either way, the cops murdered the man. That was my point, which you apparently missed completely. The whole issue centers on the fact that the officers used the taser without any real justification to begin with. Once the cops start exceeding use of force guidelines, they're breaking the law, and no longer have the same legal protections they normally have in the execution of their duties.

[Aurrora]

They had their experts go through it. That specific model of taser has two shots...not all tasers do.



Watch this video...the DA will walk you through the whole thing.

The DA presents a still frame of him running made to look like he's delivering a kick. If you actually watch the video I posted you can see there was no possible way that happened, the officer runs up and then bends down. There is no kinesiological way that he could both deliver a kick and bend down to check on him at the same time.

[Egomaniac]

The DA presents a still frame of him running made to look like he's delivering a kick. If you actually watch the video I posted you can see there was no possible way that happened, the officer runs up and then bends down. There is no kinesiological way that he could both deliver a kick and bend down to check on him at the same time.

Take it up with the DA.

He's being charged with kicking him.
The other officer is being charged for standing on his shoulder.

[Endus]

The DA presents a still frame of him running made to look like he's delivering a kick. If you actually watch the video I posted you can see there was no possible way that happened, the officer runs up and then bends down. There is no kinesiological way that he could both deliver a kick and bend down to check on him at the same time.

He gets to try and make that case in court.

Acting like he shouldn't be charged is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Cops don't get special presumptions of indisputable innocence that uniquely protect them from being charged with criminal actions. That's a fiction you've made up in your own head.

[cubby]

The DA presents a still frame of him running made to look like he's delivering a kick. If you actually watch the video I posted you can see there was no possible way that happened, the officer runs up and then bends down. There is no kinesiological way that he could both deliver a kick and bend down to check on him at the same time.

Three problems with your statement. There is no video of the cop running up - they are using still frame photos. Your interpretation of events is just that - yours, hence the implementation of a jury system for criminal acts being evaluated for state punishment. The cop doesn't "bend down" - he stands on the shot victim.

That cop is going to die in prison - and it's entirely his doing .

- - - Updated - - -

A) Sure, why not? I'm only pointing out that there are clear double standards from the DA.

B) Do you have some source that actually shows Rolfe knew there were no shots left in the taser, or actual proof there were no shots left in the taser? Because I can only see one clear deploy from the video.

Do you have some proof that standing on the body of a person you've just shot is the first step in administering first aid to a gun shot victim?

[jonnysensible]

This was actually somewhat hard to find but here’s the video I’m basing my position off of. To me he was leaving and they kept following him.

This is footage of the shooting so if that will bother you please keep that in mind and don’t click it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/meganrabu...35796949213184

thats the 2nd video it doesnt show what started it heres a better look at what this dipshit was up to https://twitter.com/chadloder/status...18308264046592

given his history : Steven Baca was arrested on multiple charges and given a general discharge from the Air National Guard for assault, fleeing the scene of an accident, insubordination, and failure to obey an order.

this guy shouldnt have a gun, hes a loose cannon

[arandomuser]

you know ive come around on the national guard thing after doing some research.
it is kind of inconsistent to believe that 1. policing is a racist institution and 2. national guard would be worst than police in doing civilian law enforcement
after looking into the history of the posse comitatus act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
the INTENT of the law was literally so the south wouldnt have to enforce any federal law in regards to reconstruction, as soon as the federal troops left the south, southern governments allowed lynchings with impunity and white mobs to harrass/kill black folks, which kind of reminds me of what these police unions are doing with walkouts refusing to do any policing.Yeah i get it alot of people are mean to them so they dont want to do their job, but its part of their job- So i think maybe atlanta should have the federal government do policing over the cops and you WOULD see a huge improvement