We're the cops in the right to kill Brooks?

[2distracted]

Brooks stole a taser and shot at the cop. Assuming he did so AS he is running off, is the cop exonerated?

 

[Moonglow]

Aren't they always?

 

[X Factor]

Is this a poll for pigeons?

 

[DiAnna]

Brooks stole a taser and shot at the cop. Assuming he did so AS he is running off, is the cop exonerated?

Brooks clearly resisted arrest, which is a separate crime in itself. Then he took the cop's weapon, also a crime and a damned serious one. If Brooks shot that laser at the cop, and hit him, he would then be in the position to take the cop's service revolver and shoot the cop in the head; I guaran-damn-tee that officer knew that.

This officer had one-tenth of a second to decide what to do. It's not for me to judge him based on what I have seen so far. Sounds like his career was over the minute that video hit the air, without much of an investigation at all. He probably learned he'd been fired when he heard it on tv.

These BLM protests are absolutely necessary and long overdue, but I'm seeing frantic-panic now among police chiefs/mayors to instantly call a press conference and fire officers before they can possibly conclude an investigation. This situation, like many others, was complicated.

The George Floyd case was not complicated at all; it was murder.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Brooks stole a taser and shot at the cop. Assuming he did so AS he is running off, is the cop exonerated?

It's hard to say killing someone is right. Unfortunately in the world we live in there are times where the situation leads to that end. We have protocols for what is considered acceptable use of force and sometimes it happens. Police are and should be able to protect their own lives in potentially deadly situations. Brooks made a series of bad decisions that caused escalation of the outcome. We will not stop having deaths in some of these situations until we have no crime, and nobody ever tries to kill or injure a police officer.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Brooks stole a taser and shot at the cop. Assuming he did so AS he is running off, is the cop exonerated?

As a cop you shoot to protect yourself or others. Where he is shot is irrelevant. The reason he was shot is what is important. The officer is authorized to shoot you in the back if you are threating someone else's life and your back is the target presented to the officer. The taser is a short range weapon that in most cases is considered non lethal. Plus it is a single shot devise to my knowledge. Every cop should know that. Unfortunately we cannot see the shooting. The taser was already fired so basically it was no longer a threat. Now it comes down to was he shot because he was endangering the life of one of the officers? At this point I don't know.

 

[Moot]

1. Brooks didn't break any laws and shouldn't have been arrested at all.
2. The cops should've let him walk to his sisters house a hundred yards away.
3. Instead, the cops escalated the situation by trying to make an arrest.
4. Resisting arrest is wrong...taking the laser was wrong...but it's not a killing offense.
5. The cop pulled his gun before Brooks turned and fired the taser, a non lethal weapon.
6. The cop shot Brooks twice in the back as he was running away.
7. This was clearly not a case of self defense.

 

[Mongidig]

The minute this dude reached for the officers weapon he should have been shot. That being said, the officers should have known something was gonna get burnt down if they did their job. They should have just let him go and forget anything ever happened.

 

[Lutherf]

Brooks clearly resisted arrest, which is a separate crime in itself. Then he took the cop's weapon, also a crime and a damned serious one. If Brooks shot that laser at the cop, and hit him, he would then be in the position to take the cop's service revolver and shoot the cop in the head; I guaran-damn-tee that officer knew that.

This officer had one-tenth of a second to decide what to do. It's not for me to judge him based on what I have seen so far. Sounds like his career was over the minute that video hit the air, without much of an investigation at all. He probably learned he'd been fired when he heard it on tv.

These BLM protests are absolutely necessary and long overdue, but I'm seeing frantic-panic now among police chiefs/mayors to instantly call a press conference and fire officers before they can possibly conclude an investigation. This situation, like many others, was complicated.

The George Floyd case was not complicated at all; it was murder.

That's remarkably honest.

 

[Lutherf]

1. Brooks didn't break any laws and shouldn't have been arrested at all.
2. The cops should've let him walk to his sisters house a hundred yards away.
3. Instead, the cops escalated the situation by trying to make an arrest.
4. Resisting arrest is wrong...taking the laser was wrong...but it's not a killing offense.
5. The cop pulled his gun before Brooks turned and fired the taser, a non lethal weapon.
6. The cop shot Brooks twice in the back as he was running away.
7. This was clearly not a case of self defense.

And this one is just remarkable.

 

[Court Jester]

The question is invalid. The use of lethal force is not intended to kill, it is intended to STOP or neutralize a deadly threat. The officer did not shoot to kill Brooks, he fired to defend himself and stop the threat to him.

Big difference.

 

[Moot]

The question is invalid. The use of lethal force is not intended to kill, it is intended to STOP or neutralize a deadly threat. The officer did not shoot to kill Brooks, he fired to defend himself and stop the threat to him.

Big difference.

Shooting someone in the back thirty feet away is not self defense.

 

[Mongidig]

Shooting someone in the back thirty feet away is not self defense.

It is when they point a weapon at you.

 

[Oborosen]

1. Brooks didn't break any laws and shouldn't have been arrested at all..

Citation please.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Brooks stole a taser and shot at the cop. Assuming he did so AS he is running off, is the cop exonerated?

As one former police commissioner from Philly pointed out..in the video leading up to the shooting, it was ascertained that Brooks was unarmed.

But, you say, he grabbed a taser and tried to shoot it at the officers! Yes, he did. However, not only is the taser non-lethal...but the officers ascertained he was otherwise unarmed.

Bu, you say, he could have tased one officer and gone for his gun! The problem with that is that there was another officer covering them; Brooks would not have been able to tase the officer, grab his gun and fire at the other officer before the second officer would have justifiably shot him. The other problem I have with this is that is sounds too much like "But just shoot him in the leg!" to me.

Instead, Brooks ran away with the Taser. Now the officers present know two facts at this point. First, the taser is non-lethal. Second, they had determined that Brooks was unarmed long before this moment.

The officer KNEW that Brooks, having a non-lethal taser, was also unarmed. Brooks was running AWAY from the officers. Yet he was still shot and killed.

There was no reason for the shooting.

 

[Bodi]

Brooks stole a taser and shot at the cop. Assuming he did so AS he is running off, is the cop exonerated?

Nope. The cop is in the wrong. Not of murder or even manslaughter... but of something.

He should be fired and made a lesson to other cops as what not to do.

 

[Bodi]

The George Floyd case was not complicated at all; it was murder.

Murder? I am pretty surprised that you would say this....



EDIT: My bad. This is about two different cases. I missed that.

I agree with your post.

 

[Bodi]

It's hard to say killing someone is right. Unfortunately in the world we live in there are times where the situation leads to that end. We have protocols for what is considered acceptable use of force and sometimes it happens. Police are and should be able to protect their own lives in potentially deadly situations. Brooks made a series of bad decisions that caused escalation of the outcome. We will not stop having deaths in some of these situations until we have no crime, and nobody ever tries to kill or injure a police officer.

The cops did not have to shoot with a pistol. They could have easily backed off and gotten him later...

 

[Bodi]

The minute this dude reached for the officers weapon he should have been shot. That being said, the officers should have known something was gonna get burnt down if they did their job. They should have just let him go and forget anything ever happened.

They only did their job in America and other oppressive police regimes... there was no need to start blasting.

You first sentence is disgusting.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It is when they point a weapon at you.

Was Brooks pointing a weapon when he was shot?
If not, how is your comment relevant?

Can you shoot someone after they point a weapon at you and are running away?

How long after someone is no longer pointing a weapon at you are you still justified in shooting them?
1 second?
10 seconds?
10 minutes?
10 days? A year?

 

[Court Jester]

Shooting someone in the back thirty feet away is not self defense.

First off it was not 30 feet. Secondly when the suspect turned and fired the taser back at the officer it doesn't matter if the officer shot him in the back.

Are you aware that Army tank can fire backwards while still moving forward? Or would you consider that still not a threat? Use your noodle, this stuff isn't that hard to figure out.

 

[Dannytoro1]

My understanding is the courts already deemed a Taser a deadly weapon. So we shall see and get ready for the rioting that will sure follow a ruling for the cop.

 

[RetiredUSN]

1. Brooks didn't break any laws and shouldn't have been arrested at all.
2. The cops should've let him walk to his sisters house a hundred yards away.
3. Instead, the cops escalated the situation by trying to make an arrest.
4. Resisting arrest is wrong...taking the laser was wrong...but it's not a killing offense.
5. The cop pulled his gun before Brooks turned and fired the taser, a non lethal weapon.
6. The cop shot Brooks twice in the back as he was running away.
7. This was clearly not a case of self defense.

Where do you come up with this stuff Moot?

1. Brooks was passed out drunk behind the wheel in a fast food drive thru, and that will get you arrested in any town/city/county/state.

2. The cops were extremely professional right up to the second that Brooks began to batter the cops.

3. He didn't just resist......he battered the cops.

4. You take a cops taser....the gun will come out.

5. He only had his back to the cops for a second. The cop had taken a blow to the head and could have been dazed and confused. Can Moot take a blow to the head by a big man and reason perfectly within 4-5 seconds?

 

[DiAnna]

Murder? I am pretty surprised that you would say this....



EDIT: My bad. This is about two different cases. I missed that.

I agree with your post.

Thank you.

 

[roguenuke]

As a cop you shoot to protect yourself or others. Where he is shot is irrelevant. The reason he was shot is what is important. The officer is authorized to shoot you in the back if you are threating someone else's life and your back is the target presented to the officer. The taser is a short range weapon that in most cases is considered non lethal. Plus it is a single shot devise to my knowledge. Every cop should know that. Unfortunately we cannot see the shooting. The taser was already fired so basically it was no longer a threat. Now it comes down to was he shot because he was endangering the life of one of the officers? At this point I don't know.

The one they had was not single shot from my understanding.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk