Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[voliol]

In this case, as in the anti-universal-heathcare arguments, which are similar ("death panels" is one example) they're clearly wrong-by-definition, because there exist examples of places which successfully did this exact same thing. Yes, there exist examples of places that abolished the entire police force and then reconstituted a new one along totally different lines. To say that can't work is like being an anti-flight person after the Wright Brothers flew their first plane. Whatever arguments you come up with are clearly going to be wrong before you even thought them up, because they're working backwards from a conclusion that was already wrong.

Different people are different. You can blame nature or nurture or whatever, but the fact is that people in one country will react to a set of circumstances in a completely different way compared to people in another country.
Americans are assholes. And they are entrenched within a system that is designed from the ground up to train them to be assholes, and indeed require them to be assholes on a daily basis just to survive. Any sort of proposed policy that hinges upon the assumption that Americans will be decent and reasonable to one another is doomed to failure, regardless of precedent set by other countries who succeeded with similar policies.

So attempts at making a better USA should not be attempted because they require... a better USA? Seems like a counter-productive argument, and ignores all improvements made in the US historically (I do believe the racial segregation days were worse, and LGBT rights have gotten somewhat better recently). Or do you mean the US population has (suddenly) hit a point-of-no-return, and no longer can their situation improve, unlike in the rest of the world?

[Folly]

if a person is running away, that’s a clear indication that they are not interested in conflict

If a person is running while being chased and also shooting at the person chasing them, it's clear indication that they don't want to have their weapon taken away before they can use it against the person they are trying to kill.

The cop who shot him apparently knew the stolen taser had been fired twice, and he's being charged with felony murder.
...
So no, in fact he was not a threat, he was completely unthreatening, the only thing he could do with that taser was activate the light

The cop fired his gun within the same second that Brooks discharged the taser. He started responding when the weapon was aimed at him, and it was over before he could possibly have processed the taser no longer being functional.

So attempts at making a better USA should not be attempted because they require... a better USA? Seems like a counter-productive argument, and ignores all improvements made in the US historically (I do believe the racial segregation days were worse, and LGBT rights have gotten somewhat better recently). Or do you mean the US population has (suddenly) hit a point-of-no-return, and no longer can their situation improve, unlike in the rest of the world?

I'm not saying the USA is incapable of bettering itself. I'm saying that sudden radical policy changes which are based upon the assumption that US citizens will act like decent human beings are fraught with danger.

[Max™]

The other cop's statement didn't make it clear whether it had been discharged before he even drew it, but it sounded like he knew Brooks was holding a gun shaped flashlight when he shot him.

You see the light come on, but that's apparently all it was gonna do?

Also, nobody in their right mind expects to KILL SOMEONE with a taser, they can kill accidentally but they're not designed to do it easily, this is why cops carry firearms and pepper spray and shit as part of a gradient of lethality.

In this case, as in the anti-universal-heathcare arguments, which are similar ("death panels" is one example) they're clearly wrong-by-definition, because there exist examples of places which successfully did this exact same thing. Yes, there exist examples of places that abolished the entire police force and then reconstituted a new one along totally different lines. To say that can't work is like being an anti-flight person after the Wright Brothers flew their first plane. Whatever arguments you come up with are clearly going to be wrong before you even thought them up, because they're working backwards from a conclusion that was already wrong.

Different people are different. You can blame nature or nurture or whatever, but the fact is that people in one country will react to a set of circumstances in a completely different way compared to people in another country.
Americans are assholes. And they are entrenched within a system that is designed from the ground up to train them to be assholes, and indeed require them to be assholes on a daily basis just to survive. Any sort of proposed policy that hinges upon the assumption that Americans will be decent and reasonable to one another is doomed to failure, regardless of precedent set by other countries who succeeded with similar policies.

So attempts at making a better USA should not be attempted because they require... a better USA? Seems like a counter-productive argument, and ignores all improvements made in the US historically (I do believe the racial segregation days were worse, and LGBT rights have gotten somewhat better recently). Or do you mean the US population has (suddenly) hit a point-of-no-return, and no longer can their situation improve, unlike in the rest of the world?

Really, without qualified immunity preventing cops from being accountable, and without qualified immunity preventing corrupt lawmakers from being accountable, a lot of shit would go away instantly, literally.

I'm more concerned about the rash of (so far) 6 black-or-brown (one was mexican apparently) "apparent suicides" found hanging in trees in public recently.

Like, holy fucking shit what the hell is going on there, one of them wasn't even in the south, where that sort of thing is basically a tradition, but palmdale california? Where even is that?

[Dunamisdeos]

I had a lady call in from Connecticut and say she had a special box for black people to deliver packages to at the foot of her driveway because they weren't allowed on her property.

The most abusive stain of a racist I've ever had on the phone was from NYC.

Donald, who is The Trump, is from Queens.

The idea that racism lives in the South is unrealistic. In my experience, racism festers best where there are wide class divides.

[SalmonGod]

Folly - I've had literally hundreds of arguments with people who hold your position in regards to dozens of incidents of police violence.  And here's the thing about your position.  If you're right, then the consequence of you being right only reinforces the idea that we would be safer without police.  If police had never approached that man, he would have just slept in his car and nothing bad would have happened.  But because police got involved, it turned into a situation where they had to protect themselves (if we grant you the notion that they were justified in believing they had to shoot to protect themselves).  If police enter into situations that are non-violent and must introduce violence to feel safe, then we would all be safer without police.

I had a lady call in from Connecticut and say she had a special box for black people to deliver packages to at the foot of her driveway because they weren't allowed on her property.

The most abusive stain of a racist I've ever had on the phone was from NYC.

Donald, who is The Trump, is from Queens.

The idea that racism lives in the South is unrealistic. In my experience, racism festers best where there are wide class divides.

Spoiler: yuuuuup (click to show/hide)

Some of the worst fascist violence has been in the pacific northwest

[Folly]

If police had never approached that man, he would have just slept in his car and nothing bad would have happened.  But because police got involved, it turned into a situation where they had to protect themselves (if we grant you the notion that they were justified in believing they had to shoot to protect themselves).  If police enter into situations that are non-violent and must introduce violence to feel safe, then we would all be safer without police.

He was DRIVING, while DRUNK. He was also drunk enough to attack people without provocation, and to take up weapons and use them carelessly. And you are making the argument that nobody needed to intervene.

Honestly, I feel like this situation is a pretty close call. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides. I only feel the need to take the cop's side because others in this thread are completely ignoring half of the facts. You are literally saying that this nice man was minding his own business when the evil cops showed up and decided to murder him for no reason, and that's just not what happened at all.

[nenjin]

Except they had no reason. He wasn't going to kill anyone with a taser, and no one missed your "execute two cops" line at all.

Police would rather see people dead than get away, no matter the crime, full stop. This isn't the Wild West. Resisting arrest isn't a reason to kill anyone. It wasn't ok when Rodney King was almost beat to death for nearly the same thing, why is it ok here?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You have said explicitly that you won't be consistent in your position - that the cops have the right to initiate violence to defend themselves, but nobody else does. That a tazer is a reasonable non-lethal weapon in the hands of a cop and explicit proof of murder in the hands of someone else. That shooting someone in the back with a real gun while they were holding an expended tazer automatically means you know the intent of the person who was shot, and that their intent was to steal a gun and do some gangland execution of everyone nearby.

What is there even to say to you? You've made yourself clear.

[Reelya]

In this case, as in the anti-universal-heathcare arguments, which are similar ("death panels" is one example) they're clearly wrong-by-definition, because there exist examples of places which successfully did this exact same thing. Yes, there exist examples of places that abolished the entire police force and then reconstituted a new one along totally different lines. To say that can't work is like being an anti-flight person after the Wright Brothers flew their first plane. Whatever arguments you come up with are clearly going to be wrong before you even thought them up, because they're working backwards from a conclusion that was already wrong.

Different people are different. You can blame nature or nurture or whatever, but the fact is that people in one country will react to a set of circumstances in a completely different way compared to people in another country.
Americans are assholes. And they are entrenched within a system that is designed from the ground up to train them to be assholes, and indeed require them to be assholes on a daily basis just to survive. Any sort of proposed policy that hinges upon the assumption that Americans will be decent and reasonable to one another is doomed to failure, regardless of precedent set by other countries who succeeded with similar policies.

I'm not even talking about different countries here. I'm talking about Camden, New Jersey, specifically.

And the "well it works in different countries but it won't work here" argument is silly anyway. What are you saying Americans are too inbred for normal stuff to work as intended or something? j/k, but the point stands that the argument about "it's different here" is just an empty, vapid, statement that gets tossed around to justify why the status quo can't change, when the evidence that it can in fact change is presented. In fact, that status quo in the place you live was almost certainly the status quo in the place that changed how things work, and the same type of people there said "that will never work here" before they actually did it.

For example, pretty much anywhere that decriminalized drugs had people who were going "if we decriminalize drugs everything will go to shit" before they did it. And then wherever they decriminalize drugs, invariably nothing actually goes to shit ... but that doesn't stop all the people in every other town going "well they decriminalized drugs over there but it won't work here, things are different and everything will go to shit, if we do that". Which goes against all common sense and reason. If zero% of towns that decriminalized drugs ended up going to shit, there's no actual reason to hold onto the belief that decriminalizing drugs will cause your own town to go to shit. Yet people still put forward the "it's different here" argument about this sort of stuff. I'd call it confirmation bias except it's worse than that since they're not cherry picking data, they're pull this stuff out of their ass.

Things like who is running the hospitals or what rules the local police have aren't really in the "well the culture is different here so that won't work" area anyway. It's not the "local culture" that you're being lorded over by hired thugs who close ranks around each other when one of them murders someone, intimidate the witnesses and the prosecutors, etc.

Yes, maybe it's difficult to oust the criminals with badges because the criminals with badges will do everything to make it difficult for themselves to be ousted. That's the element of "Different people are different" in this specific equation. Get rid of those specific people and put better people in their jobs.

[Bumber]

They questioned him for half an hour then went to cuff him, one of them pulled a taser and during the scuffle he got it from them, I'm sure he said something like "he's got my taser" but to be fair he may have said "HE'S GOT A WEAPON NOW, TIME TO KILL HIM" because again, cops do that.

We know exactly what was said thanks to the bodycam: https://youtu.be/DhdpG2XzRXQ?t=2484

"Stop fighting!" "You're gonna get tased!" "Hands off the fucking taser!" "Stop fighting!" "He's got my fucking taser!" *cop long-range tasing Brooks* "Uh... 63!" *3 gun shots*

Spoiler: Signal 63: (click to show/hide)

https://www.atlantapd.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=2256
Call for service that involves an officer needing immediate help. In a signal 63, the officer is in a life-threatening or potentially life-threatening situation. All employees, whether on duty or off duty, are responsible for responding to a signal 63.

The cam fell off during the scuffle, but you can hear everything. Interestingly, we see the cop who still held a taser had actually already long-range tased Brooks, to no effect.

A running target is not threatening, it's as non-threatening as it gets, really, the fuck kinda shit you gotta do to jump through the logical hoops to see someone running from two probable murderers with a single shot less-lethal weapon as a violent criminal and a threat?

They frisked him before cuffs came out, he magically got a gun out of his butt? Both cops had theirs, are they just being careful in case their buddy ALSO lost their gun instead of one of them losing their taser? Why the assumption he's a criminal automatically? He's what you call a murder victim, he was murdered by two cowards who had him outnumbered, outgunned, and believed they were justified in murdering him.

The shooting officer doesn't know that the other officer still has his gun, or isn't incapacitated from being tased in the head or being knocked to the ground. It could've fallen to the ground, or worse, Brooks could also have also stolen that without them noticing. He's assumed to be a criminal because they can't read his mind, he's drunk, and he's already fought with the officers and stolen a taser.

The cop who shot him apparently knew the stolen taser had been fired twice, and he's being charged with felony murder.

Consider me goddamn fucking gobsmacked that *checks notes* Atlanta of all places is apparently trying to be on the ball here about their cops murdering people.

So no, in fact he was not a threat, he was completely unthreatening, the only thing he could do with that taser was activate the light, which he did, but I guess intent to dazzle is enough to murder someone... GOD SAVE LADY GAGA!

It had been used to short-range tase Brooks in the leg, and used by Brooks to short-range tase one of the cops in the head, as you can see from the dashboard cam: https://youtu.be/o5LF9FSvhmA?t=62

The Wendy's surveillance cam caught footage of Brooks firing the taser long-range, immediately before being shot: https://youtu.be/MawQYNNIoZ0?t=1710

Spoiler: Gif including Brooks being shot: (click to show/hide)

Here are the frames that seem to show Brooks firing the long-range mode of the taser:


Charging with murder is one thing, proving is another.

The other cop's statement didn't make it clear whether it had been discharged before he even drew it, but it sounded like he knew Brooks was holding a gun shaped flashlight when he shot him.

You see the light come on, but that's apparently all it was gonna do?

Also, nobody in their right mind expects to KILL SOMEONE with a taser, they can kill accidentally but they're not designed to do it easily, this is why cops carry firearms and pepper spray and shit as part of a gradient of lethality.

The light was already on when he stole it. The "light coming on" is either it discharging, or the light shining on some conveniently-placed mist for an instant.

A taser can render someone helpless enough to be beaten to death, or have their gun stolen and that someone used as a human shield.

Here are the relative distances between the officers and Brooks:

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If we're going with this incredibly stupid line of thought, Brooks could have ran the pigs over with his car as soon as he woke up, so why not just shoot him through the windshield while he's sleeping? That's frankly way more plausible than this "eNd ThE tHrEaT" bullshit. Why, these cops put that entire city block at risk of a vehicular rampage with their foolish limp-wristed procedure! Fucking millennials, am I right?

[Reelya]

@Bumber For proving murder, the bar is lower than you're suggesting.

For example, if you kill someone in self-defense, but you were engaged in a crime at the time, then you're charged with murder and the self-defense argument is rejected.

They could easily decide that the cop's guilty of murder because they didn't follow whatever training they were meant to follow, de-escalation rules and all that, and that they therefore caused the situation to unfold to the point they had to kill him. It's still murder in that case even if the exact proximate reason to shoot the person was motivated by survival, just like it's still murder if you're a burglar and you shoot a knife-wielding home owner.

In this case, if they can show that the 'suspect' was provoked due to heavy-handed police tactics leading up to the altercation, then the actual point at which the cop shot him is just the proximate cause of death, not the entire murder charge.

It's not like the 2 seconds where he's running is an isolated event and if they can show that if the cop couldn't be certain what he had in those hands during those two seconds then it can't be a murder charge. That's not a thing.

And for good reason. If the cops can repeatedly provoke you, and the very second you make any move they can interpret as being hostile or in any way scary to them, they can shoot you in cold blood and use the "well he was dangerous" argument and get away free, and nothing that they did in the lead-up to the action is relevant anymore ... that's a very bad thing - and we certainly wouldn't interpret things for anyone else who murdered anyone the same way if they weren't a cop.

[Bumber]

If we're going with this incredibly stupid line of thought, Brooks could have ran the pigs over with his car as soon as he woke up, so why not just shoot him through the windshield while he's sleeping? That's frankly way more plausible than this "eNd ThE tHrEaT" bullshit. Why, these cops put that entire city block at risk of a vehicular rampage with their foolish limp-wristed procedure! Fucking millennials, am I right?

Reductio ad absurdum. He wasn't hostile until he started fighting with the cops. Even after he stole the taser and tased one officer in the freakin' head, the other officer still only fired his taser at Brooks. It was only after Brooks pointed (and seemingly fired) the taser at the second officer that lethal force was used.

@Bumber For proving murder, the bar is lower than you're suggesting.

For example, if you kill someone in self-defense, but you were engaged in a crime at the time, then you're charged with murder and the self-defense argument is rejected.

They could easily decide that the cop's guilty of murder because they didn't follow whatever training they were meant to follow, de-escalation rules and all that, and that they therefore caused the situation to unfold to the point they had to kill him. It's still murder in that case even if the exact proximate reason to shoot the person was motivated by survival, just like it's still murder if you're a burglar and you shoot a knife-wielding home owner.

In this case, if they can show that the 'suspect' was provoked due to heavy-handed police tactics leading up to the altercation, then the actual point at which the cop shot him is just the proximate cause of death, not the entire murder charge.

It's not like the 2 seconds where he's running is an isolated event and if they can show that if the cop couldn't be certain what he had in those hands during those two seconds then it can't be a murder charge. That's not a thing.

And for good reason. If the cops can repeatedly provoke you, and the very second you make any move they can interpret as being hostile or in any way scary to them, they can shoot you in cold blood and use the "well he was dangerous" argument and get away free, and nothing that they did in the lead-up to the action is relevant anymore ... that's a very bad thing - and we certainly wouldn't interpret things for anyone else who murdered anyone the same way if they weren't a cop.

They're going to have to show what those "heavy-handed police tactics" were, since the footage shows everything being seemingly amicable until the moment they try to slip the cuffs on him and he goes berserk.

[Reelya]

Was there a need to cuff the guy at all? If it can be shown that they don't normally cuff white people in the same circumstances then that itself would be a thing that comes up in the trial.

I mean, the guy was just asleep in a car then they've charged him with drunk driving, already questionable. Then, the guy was already complying with them, and they went to cuff him. Already at least two questionable points here, and it's about the entire event itself, they pretty much concocted the whole reason to interact with a random person, and kept upping the stakes. And the guy might well have feared what would have happened to him in custody. People do die in custody or in the back of police vans. Black people, that is.

So while you might say it's reasonable to just go along with them, that's also coming from the point of view of someone far less likely for them to fuck with once you're in the system. They're just hand cuffs right, what's the big deal? Well clearly if they're cuffing you, the goal is to stick you in a prison cell, and who knows what the fuck will happen to you then, especially a black person in the south. If they lock him up, then he's gotta wait for a bail hearing before he can get out, and how long does it take to even schedule a bail hearing, and can these be delayed?

And even then, after the bail hearing he can only get out if he can afford being shaken down for money. Meanwhile, he's lost his job, lost his car, probably lost his relationship, possibly lost his kids, who knows. If he can't afford bail after the bail hearing, then he's stuck rotting in prison until his low-priority case can be heard and he's being represented by some snotty underpaid and uninterested public defender, and assuming the public defender doesn't blow the case, the best he can hope for is that the judge just dismisses the case and he's free again, in 9 months or something, and he's ended up doing almost a year in prison and losing everything, over something that's not even a crime, based on the cops say-so, rather than a judge. And the cops involved knew all this even before they charged him.

That's the end result of targeting people like this for the "letter of the law" where they'd let it slide if he wasn't black in the first place.

[Bumber]

Was there a need to cuff the guy at all? If it can be shown that they don't normally cuff white people in the same circumstances then that itself would be a thing that comes up in the trial.

Seems to happen to anyone even suspected of being on drugs (e.g., marijuana.) Katelyn Ebner here seems to be white:
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the-drug-whisperer-drivers-arrested-while-stone-cold-sober/85-437061710

I don't know if that includes alcohol, but I would assume so.

I mean, the guy was just asleep in a car then they've charged him with drunk driving, already questionable. Then, the guy was already complying with them, and they went to cuff him. Already at least two questionable points here, and it's about the entire event itself, they pretty much concocted the whole reason to interact with a random person, and kept upping the stakes.

It depends on what the regulation is. It might assume by default that the suspect had been drunk driving prior, and that the suspect intends to continue driving after.