So another POS criminal cant' behave himself and Atlanta burns...

herb749

Well-Known Member
This will just make the situation worse. The (literally) worst possible take on the part of the DA:

Talk about compounding errors.... Put down the shovel, people!

--- End of line (MCP)

Why .? He's just making peace with the mob. Just let this go to court in 6-8 months when the mob has lost its steam.
 

Will99

Active Member
(b) Unless they get back in their car and (attempt to) drive away.
Yes, even then the officers have to get them out of the vehicle in order to arrest them. So therefore EVERY arrest has the person out of the car. The cops never take the person to jail while still driving.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
This is what you said, "maybe when Brooks broke contact it MIGHT have been better not to pursue?" Certainly in your question you are suggesting "it might have been better not to pursue" Mr. Brooks who had assaulted both police officers and stole one of their tasers. At what point do you think a police officer should pursue a person who has assaulted them and stolen property?
Did you mean "'it might have been better not to pursue' Mr. Brooks who had assaulted both police officers and stole one of their tasers"?

If I'm correctly following what I think may be your line of thought my answer is: I don't know. I'm not on the ground doing the job, I don't know what the ATL PD had issued for guidance, and I don't have a complete picture as to what happened. I'm hesitant to decide either way (though I do lean) because I would prefer more info surrounding the event and more time between "event and reaction to said event" so that this can be looked at with calmer/cooler heads through less-cynical eyes.

The only thing I'm sure of at this point is that the Oxford comma is superior to the alternative.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Why .? He's just making peace with the mob. Just let this go to court in 6-8 months when the mob has lost its steam.
Yes, he is. Which is why it's bad. This will go into the angry mob's 2020/2021 day planner and if the POs aren't up for murder we get the next wave. I don't think the mob will lose its steam; what they will do claim "been cheated" again.

The DA had a captive audience and should have explained the complexities of all this. Why not impanel a grand jury? Why not let the ATL PD internal affairs (or whatever office handles these things) have a look and recommend. Where's the ATL PD Chief?

If none of these things are feasible, then explain why Mr. DA. Explain why you immediately went where you did.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Yes, even then the officers have to get them out of the vehicle in order to arrest them. So therefore EVERY arrest has the person out of the car. The cops never take the person to jail while still driving.
Oh, come on. It has never happened that someone has escaped the clutches of the POs and jumped back into the car?

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Will99

Active Member
Did you mean "'it might have been better not to pursue' Mr. Brooks who had assaulted both police officers and stole one of their tasers"?

If I'm correctly following what I think may be your line of thought my answer is: I don't know. I'm not on the ground doing the job, I don't know what the ATL PD had issued for guidance, and I don't have a complete picture as to what happened. I'm hesitant to decide either way (though I do lean) because I would prefer more info surrounding the event and more time between "event and reaction to said event" so that this can be looked at with calmer/cooler heads through less-cynical eyes.

The only thing I'm sure of at this point is that the Oxford comma is superior to the alternative.

--- End of line (MCP)
You are the person who first said "it might have been better not to pursue". I guess you had not seen the video, or didn't take into account Mr. Brooks assaulted the two police officers and stole the taser. Imagine that. You had the benefit of time and the opportunity to review the video and that thought really didn't occur to you. You were still stuck on this being merely a DUI situation. These cops didn't have the luxury of days of review, they had to make an immediate decision. Their decision was to pursue a person who had just assaulted them, stole their taser. One of them decided to shoot a person who was pointing an incapacitating weapon at them.
 

Will99

Active Member
Oh, come on. It has never happened that someone has escaped the clutches of the POs and jumped back into the car?

--- End of line (MCP)
Do you even read what you write? I said every person is out of their car when arrested. You then said unless they jump back in their car. Well, sir, if they jump back in their car and "escape" then they are not arrested then are they? They don't become arrested until they get back out of their car. (wow)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
You are the person who first said "it might have been better not to pursue". I guess you had not seen the video, or didn't take into account Mr. Brooks assaulted the two police officers and stole the taser. Imagine that. You had the benefit of time and the opportunity to review the video and that thought really didn't occur to you. You were still stuck on this being merely a DUI situation. These cops didn't have the luxury of days of review, they had to make an immediate decision. Their decision was to pursue a person who had just assaulted them, stole their taser. One of them decided to shoot a person who was pointing an incapacitating weapon at them.
Maybe you didn't see my first post in this thread (since you started quoting me from my second post). Here's a link to my first post. Maybe it will address some of the things you are wondering about wrt my take/position on/of this event:

Do you even read what you write? I said every person is out of their car when arrested. You then said unless they jump back in their car. Well, sir, if they jump back in their car and "escape" then they are not arrested then are they? They don't become arrested until they get back out of their car. (wow)
In fact, yes, I do read what I write.

I will extend grace by saying that perhaps we are using the term "arrest" differently. I am coming from the angle that "(under) arrest" is one thing, but "(under) control" is another.

It is my understanding that a person can be under arrest (a legal concept) but not necessarily under control (a physical concept). For example, if a police officer tells me I'm under arrest, but doesn't yet have the cuffs on me (or in the squad car), then I may be under arrest but am still not under his/her control. Am I incorrect in my understanding ? If so, glad to be corrected/glad to learn something.

So yes, I do read what I write. And I even think about what I want to write before typing it out.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Will99

Active Member
Maybe you didn't see my first post in this thread (since you started quoting me from my second post). Here's a link to my first post. Maybe it will address some of the things you are wondering about wrt my take/position on/of this event:


In fact, yes, I do read what I write.

I will extend grace by saying that perhaps we are using the term "arrest" differently. I am coming from the angle that "(under) arrest" is one thing, but "(under) control" is another.

It is my understanding that a person can be under arrest (a legal concept) but not necessarily under control (a physical concept). For example, if a police officer tells me I'm under arrest, but doesn't yet have the cuffs on me (or in the squad car), then I may be under arrest but am still not under his/her control. Am I incorrect in my understanding ? If so, glad to be corrected/glad to learn something.

So yes, I do read what I write. And I even think about what I want to write before typing it out.

--- End of line (MCP)
You seem to be trying to have it both ways. In reading everything you wrote, you certainly are suggesting the police ought to have let him go. Your words, questioning why the rules of engagement don't allow a person to go free who was breaking the law. Being under arrest and being under control are two different things, however, a person can't be under arrest when they are driving away in their vehicle. They are then escaped if they had been under arrest prior to jumping in their vehicle.

I don't know what the officer thought was being fired at him at the time Mr. Brooks turned and fired a taser at him. I don't know if the officer thought it was the stolen taser or perhaps a firearm which was missed in the "pat down" of Mr. Brooks waist prior to field sobriety testing. What I do know is Mr. Brooks brought this situation to the police by first breaking the law by driving while impaired, second, physically assaulting the officers when being arrested, and thirdly by pointing an incapacitating weapon at a police officer who is pursuing you for the aforementioned offenses.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
No Jury Will Convict
Don't bet on it. Will depend on the mood/social pressures surrounding the trial at the time of the trial.

If this doesn't go to trial we'll see riots. If it does and the officers are acquitted we'll see riots. If they are convicted it will go on to appeal and most certainly will be overturned. And guess what then? Riots. Because those who profit from racial tension will ensure whatever the outcome is is profited from. There will be "questions" about jury make-up and either verdict. There will be "questions" about overturning the "will of the people" if any conviction is overturned. And if the POs get out from under this they will never work again in any meaningful way as they will be doxxed & hounded (as will any prospective employer).

NONE OF WHAT THE DA HAS DONE IS FAIR OR JUST OR HELPFUL.

Which is why I said the DA should have approached this differently; should have put the shovel down.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
You seem to be trying to have it both ways. In reading everything you wrote, you certainly are suggesting the police ought to have let him go. Your words, questioning why the rules of engagement don't allow a person to go free who was breaking the law. Being under arrest and being under control are two different things, however, a person can't be under arrest when they are driving away in their vehicle. They are then escaped if they had been under arrest prior to jumping in their vehicle.

I don't know what the officer thought was being fired at him at the time Mr. Brooks turned and fired a taser at him. I don't know if the officer thought it was the stolen taser or perhaps a firearm which was missed in the "pat down" of Mr. Brooks waist prior to field sobriety testing. What I do know is Mr. Brooks brought this situation to the police by first breaking the law by driving while impaired, second, physically assaulting the officers when being arrested, and thirdly by pointing an incapacitating weapon at a police officer who is pursuing you for the aforementioned offenses.
You are correct. I AM trying to have it both ways. I think I've been clear why.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Well the cop has been charged with felony murder, which has a penalty of life in prison or the death penalty.

The ghetto shysters were on TV talking about how terrible it is that each year Brooks' daughter will remember that this is the day her sainted Daddy died. I wonder if she'll remember that Daddy got shitfaced passing out drunk at her birthday party?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
And if the POs get out from under this they will never work again in any meaningful way as they will be doxxed & hounded (as will any prospective employer).

Yep .... getting a job sweeping the floor in a truck stop men's room on the interstate will be difficult
 

herb749

Well-Known Member
Well the cop has been charged with felony murder, which has a penalty of life in prison or the death penalty.

The ghetto shysters were on TV talking about how terrible it is that each year Brooks' daughter will remember that this is the day her sainted Daddy died. I wonder if she'll remember that Daddy got shitfaced passing out drunk at her birthday party?
Well the cop has been charged with felony murder, which has a penalty of life in prison or the death penalty.

The ghetto shysters were on TV talking about how terrible it is that each year Brooks' daughter will remember that this is the day her sainted Daddy died. I wonder if she'll remember that Daddy got shitfaced passing out drunk at her birthday party?


Guess that daughter wasn't the one he endangered that got 2-7 yrs for. DA said he wasn't displaying anger or aggressive behavior. Uh, punching in the face and taking a taser was aggressive .? Or was that not in the video . :dork:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for four crimes - including cruelty to children - and faced going back to prison if charged with a DUI, when he was found asleep and intoxicated at Wendy's drive-thru


  • Rayshard Brooks was on probation and faced going back to prison if he was charged with a DUI, DailyMail.com can reveal
  • The 27-year-old was shot and killed by police after he was found asleep at a Wendy's drive-thru in Atlanta on Friday, June 12
  • He was compliant with cops but after he failed a field sobriety test and blew 0.108 when breathalyzed, Brooks suddenly resisted when cops tried to cuff him
  • Brooks was shot twice in the back as he tried to make a break for it
  • The charges to which Brooks pleaded guilty and for which he was still on probation dated back to August 2014
  • He was convicted on four counts – False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children
  • Brooks had not been in trouble since 2016 until last December when he went to Ohio without informing his probation officer - but the case was dismissed
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Guess that daughter wasn't the one he endangered that got 2-7 yrs for. DA said he wasn't displaying anger or aggressive behavior. Uh, punching in the face and taking a taser was aggressive .? Or was that not in the video . :dork:
The DA reminds me of that Democrat shitbag who went after the Duke lacrosse players. Hopefully he will end up the same as Mike Nifong.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Yep, this either ends with a travesty of justice, or Atlanta burns again. Seems everywhere I look, I see the Paris mobs writ large.........
 
Top