Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[OMG!WTF!]

I think the NCAA is doing it right. If the tribe likes it, it's ok. Chief Iliniwek of the Illinois Souix is gone because the band didn't approve. the Fighting Illini mascot is now a bird I think. Chief Osceola of the Seminole tribe is in cause those maniacs freaking love that stuff in Tallahassee.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah when I was younger I couldn't really tell, but my mom always knew when I came back from a soccer tournament and had been in the sun all weekend. I think the concern is that nearly equivalent damage is being done in some circumstances, but few measures are done to counteract it because the skin obviously doesn't turn blistering red.

I tree planted with some guys from Eritrea before and they told me that they actually get worse sun burns in Canada than they did in Africa. For one thing, they often wore more clothing in Africa to protect themselves from the sun (something that Canadian culture would think is weird - as soon as we can dress down, we do). But also the longer hours of daylight in the summer in northern latitudes might play a roll.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Update: the shooting officer has been charged with murder.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rayshar...ay-2020-06-17/

Yah of course he going to testify against the other officer, that’s his only hope.
The DA seems to be building a public case against the cop and using false information. To say that Brooks was “peaceful” a lie. Saying he was simply “asleep in his car” is a lie.

He was also out on parole for beating his kids, among other things and knew he would end up back in jail for DUI. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.dail...arged-DUI.html

Sadly poor decisions from both law enforcement and the victim ended in one of the worst possible results.

There’s also an older interview where he talks about the struggles within the justice and prison system.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn....ion/index.html

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Yah of course he going to testify against the other officer, that’s his only hope.
The DA seems to be building a public case against the cop and using false information. To say that Brooks was “peaceful” a lie. Saying he was simply “asleep in his car” is a lie.

He was also out on parole for beating his kids, among other things and knew he would end up back in jail for DUI. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.dail...arged-DUI.html

Sadly poor decisions from both law enforcement and the victim ended in one of the worst possible results.

There’s also an older interview where he talks about the struggles within the justice and prison system.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn....ion/index.html

Howard correctly says Brooks was peaceful for the 41 minutes prior to the altercation, he makes that clear. Brooks also WAS asleep, how is that a lie? You saw the video. His BAC level wasn't at a point where it would cause a blackout or loss of function.

But it does make it clear why he ran. He'd been trouble-free for four years and
a DUI would absolutely send him back to prison and away from his family, who by all accounts, absolutely loved him. It's a shame he made a very stupid and dangerous mistake that would send him back to jail and erase years of rehabilitation. It's disgusting that dangerous mistake led to his death.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Howard correctly says Brooks was peaceful for the 41 minutes prior to the altercation, he makes that clear. Brooks also WAS asleep, how is that a lie? You saw the video. His BAC level wasn't at a point where it would cause a blackout or loss of function.

But it does make it clear why he ran. He'd been trouble-free for four years and
a DUI would absolutely send him back to prison and away from his family, who by all accounts, absolutely loved him. It's a shame he made a very stupid and dangerous mistake that would send him back to jail and erase years of rehabilitation. It's disgusting that dangerous mistake led to his death.

He was peaceful until he wasn’t, then he was violent as hell. And being passed out behind the wheel in line at a drive through has much more truth to it then asleep in his car. I’ve slept in my car, probably over 100 times (I use to drive a delivery van and would often stop for cat naps during the day) usually at a rest stop or somewhere safe off the road, never in line at the drive through.

These details or totally irrelevant at this point however. It would just be nice if the whole truths were reported vs half truths, no matter the case.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

He was peaceful until he wasn’t, then he was violent as hell. And being passed out behind the wheel in line at a drive through has much more truth to it then asleep in his car. I’ve slept in my car, probably over 100 times (I use to drive a delivery van and would often stop for cat naps during the day) usually at a rest stop or somewhere safe off the road, never in line at the drive through.

These details or totally irrelevant at this point however. It would just be nice if the whole truths were reported vs half truths, no matter the case.

I agree that not entirely the full story gets laid out but I honestly don’t think it has any relevance at all anyway. Seems like you agree so not sure why these details matter to be included in any reporting?

The police are not judge, jury or executioner. That is not their role. They carry firearms to serve and protect, not execute black people. Last time I checked both officers have legs and police cars and can chase people if they run. So all of the other details you’d like to see are just irrelevant here, because none of those details serve the narrative that an execution was warranted. And also... like... it’s not even close. At no point, at all... were either of those cops lives in danger. At all. Ever. So if the details are irrelevant to the crux of the issue I’m confused why they need to be included in the story other than to try and wedge in some kind of justification when none of these details justify any of it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

He was peaceful until he wasn’t, then he was violent as hell. And being passed out behind the wheel in line at a drive through has much more truth to it then asleep in his car. I’ve slept in my car, probably over 100 times (I use to drive a delivery van and would often stop for cat naps during the day) usually at a rest stop or somewhere safe off the road, never in line at the drive through.

These details or totally irrelevant at this point however. It would just be nice if the whole truths were reported vs half truths, no matter the case.

"Violent as hell" is sort of a half-truth in itself, unless your version of hell is much nicer than what most people would relate to. He tried to run, immediately, and they fell to the ground. He proceeded to do everything he could to get away from them.

And he was asleep in his car. Yes, it was also at a drive through and alcohol was involved, but he was asleep in his car.

I'm just not sure what you're looking for here. It doesn't change anything. There are no "lies" being told here, which you claimed there were.

I don't know, I just think if you're making a post saying the DA is a liar when the evidence shows the same things as what the DA actually said, and you're bringing up his criminal history, I have to ask why. Who are you defending here? Because it really doesn't sound like you're defending the guy who just got murdered. And I'm not sure how anyone in the right mind can come down on the side of him deserving two bullets in the back, even considering every single detail we've seen.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I agree that not entirely the full story gets laid out but I honestly don’t think it has any relevance at all anyway. Seems like you agree so not sure why these details matter to be included in any reporting?

The police are not judge, jury or executioner. That is not their role. They carry firearms to serve and protect, not execute black people. Last time I checked both officers have legs and police cars and can chase people if they run. So all of the other details you’d like to see are just irrelevant here, because none of those details serve the narrative that an execution was warranted. And also... like... it’s not even close. At no point, at all... were either of those cops lives in danger. At all. Ever. So if the details are irrelevant to the crux of the issue I’m confused why they need to be included in the story other than to try and wedge in some kind of justification when none of these details justify any of it.

Except here’s the problem. The murder charge will not hold up, and all these details which reporters have left out, such as Brooks assaulting the officers and resisting arrest and being legally impaired while driving and taking an officers weapon and firing it at him, the fact that they’re dealing with a convicted felo, will all play a major when this goes to trial. Yet those same details will be ignored by the mob reaction.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Except here’s the problem. The murder charge will not hold up, and all these details which reporters have left out, such as Brooks assaulting the officers and resisting arrest and being legally impaired while driving and taking an officers weapon and firing it at him, the fact that they’re dealing with a convicted felo, will all play a major when this goes to trial. Yet those same details are ignored by the mob reaction.

That's because you're focused on details that don't matter, and you're claiming some things are lies when they aren't.

Your slant to this isn't "truth," as much as you want it to be. I mean if we're trying to end "half-truths" here by saying "asleep in his car" isn't appropriate unless you add "impaired in a drive-through line," shouldn't we also agree that "taking an officer's weapon" should probably be "taking a non-lethal, spent taser"? Shouldn't "convicted felon" be "who has served his time and been trouble-free for years"?

If you're interested in "truth," that is. You can't pick and choose what the truth is.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"Violent as hell" is sort of a half-truth in itself, unless your version of hell is much nicer than what most people would relate to. He tried to run, immediately, and they fell to the ground. He proceeded to do everything he could to get away from them.

And he was asleep in his car. Yes, it was also at a drive through and alcohol was involved, but he was asleep in his car.

I'm just not sure what you're looking for here. It doesn't change anything. There are no "lies" being told here, which you claimed there were.

I don't know, I just think if you're making a post saying the DA is a liar when the evidence shows the same things as what the DA actually said, and you're bringing up his criminal history, I have to ask why. Who are you defending here? Because it really doesn't sound like you're defending the guy who just got murdered. And I'm not sure how anyone in the right mind can come down on the side of him deserving two bullets in the back, even considering every single detail we've seen.

He resisted arrest, assaulted them and fired a weapon at the officer, not sure how it could get anymore violent then that.

Does he deserve to be dead? Of course not. Was the police office justified in returning fire? That’s for the courts to decide, if the last few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that his acquittal will not go over peacefully.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

He resisted arrest, assaulted them and fired a weapon at the officer, not sure how it could get anymore violent then that.

Does he deserve to be dead? Of course not. Was the police office justified in returning fire? That’s for the courts to decide, if the last few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that his acquittal will not go over peacefully.

I mean he could have killed one of them, which is what they did to him. That would be more violent. He could have actually attempted to beat one of them, that would be more violent. He could focused on harming either of them, instead of focusing solely on breaking free, that would be more violent. He could have tried to grab their guns instead of the taser, that would be more violent. He could have stayed fighting instead of running away, that would be more violent. He could grabbed a live taser and fired that instead of a blank, that would be more violent.

But you think he "couldn't be more violent"? Strange. Again, why are you upset with the "mob" and "the media" over telling the incomplete story, when just seem interested in an equally incomplete version that suits you?

I get what you're saying. Painting this like some peaceful and saintly interaction where a man was randomly murdered for zero reason at all isn't good. I don't see anyone doing that, but sure, let's agree it's not good. The solution isn't then trying to paint the opposite picture. You're just doing the same thing.

[Ped]

It all boils down to when you think an officer is justified in using deadly force. I've seen a lot of arguments that he got violent, that he resisted arrest, and that he attempted to use a police office's weapon against them. All of that is true.


But what's also true is he was shot in the back while fleeing. If he was shot during the actual resistance, during trying to injure an officer, maybe you could argue it was justify. i wouldn't, because there ways to shoot someone lessen the risk of death, but I can understand why some people would.


But once the guy turns and runs? The immediate danger is over. If a guy is holding someone hostage and the snipers are there, and he's threatening to kill the hostage and pointing the gun, they might shoot him if they get a chance, if they determine that he's an immediate risk. But if he drops the gun and turns and runs, they're not shooting him in the back or the head. They're goign to capture him. The immediate threat is over.


Maybe this guy goes to trial and gets acquitted. That doesn't make what he did okay, just like other acquittals haven't exactly made someone suddenly innocent. If he is acquitted, it's just further proof of issues with the entire system (imo). Not just the legal system, but training and recruitment and everything else people are looking at to say "This isn't right."

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Except here’s the problem. The murder charge will not hold up, and all these details which reporters have left out, such as Brooks assaulting the officers and resisting arrest and being legally impaired while driving and taking an officers weapon and firing it at him, the fact that they’re dealing with a convicted felo, will all play a major when this goes to trial. Yet those same details will be ignored by the mob reaction.

the cop put a bullet into a car in the car park which had three people in it who were nothing to do with any of the incident, that alone will put him in jail

[Acey]

He's facing 11 charges, shooting the man running away wasn't the only thing that went wrong.

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

He resisted arrest, assaulted them and fired a weapon at the officer, not sure how it could get anymore violent then that.

25 American officers have been shot and killed so far in 2020.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Acey

He's facing 11 charges, shooting the man running away wasn't the only thing that went wrong.



25 American officers have been shot and killed so far in 2020.

Oh, I agree. But even considering everything else that went wrong, that they did wrong, it was the shooting that made this an incident. It would been terrible if he hadn't ended up dead, but that just made the tragedy and the aftermath more reprehensible.
B
y isolating it to the actual shooting, I'm just trying to argue what those who deem it justified appear to be claiming. That's not to diminish everything else they did wrong, because up until then, the victim was still alive.


I've seen a lot of arguments over the last couple of weeks (not so much here) that police in the US need all these guns and training and etcetera because there are so many guns in the States.


And while that's true, why do most of these shootings seem to be people who have no guns? Everyone who's being honest has the answer.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

He resisted arrest, assaulted them and fired a weapon at the officer, not sure how it could get anymore violent then that.

Does he deserve to be dead? Of course not. Was the police office justified in returning fire? That’s for the courts to decide, if the last few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that his acquittal will not go over peacefully.

I hope that you are engaging in dialogue in good faith

If, taken on the basis of what we believe to be true, you have a guy using lethal force on a guy who is not a threat at that moment, and if he is acquitted, you should not expect it to be accepted

[Thor]

My wife is from Texas, and she has lots of problematic friends who are posting all lives matter, and a fair bit of those getting very defensive over the confederate flags/statues.

There is such a huge problem with these social media bubbles when she shows me her FB wall, the sheer number of all lives matter and blue lives matter mixed in with the confederate stuff is really depressing.

[OMG!WTF!]

I thought it was interesting to note that the Atlanta PD policy specifically says you're not allowed to use a Taser on someone who is running away.



Also in 2016 an Atlanta officer was not charged when he shot and killed a suspect after the suspect used pepper spray on him. Pepper spray is also the same non lethal category as a Taser.



So there's the range any jury has to work with. A Taser is capable of incapacitating someone; but not to the point of pepper spray and not when you're running away, and not when there are two officers. If an officer isn't allowed by policy to taze someone who is running away, it's going to be hard to find the officer not guilty.

The murder charge will not hold up

I'm not sure about that. It's a felony murder charge, not murder. If you are convicted of a felony and someone dies during the commission of the felony, you're probably guilty of felony murder. People have been convicted of felony murder when all they were doing was sitting in the get away car. If he's guilty of assault, I don't see how he could be innocent of felony murder.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Thor

My wife is from Texas, and she has lots of problematic friends who are posting all lives matter, and a fair bit of those getting very defensive over the confederate flags/statues.

There is such a huge problem with these social media bubbles when she shows me her FB wall, the sheer number of all lives matter and blue lives matter mixed in with the confederate stuff is really depressing.

Truthfully I knew what the rest of your post would be about once I read “Texas”.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Ped

It all boils down to when you think an officer is justified in using deadly force. I've seen a lot of arguments that he got violent, that he resisted arrest, and that he attempted to use a police office's weapon against them. All of that is true.


But what's also true is he was shot in the back while fleeing. If he was shot during the actual resistance, during trying to injure an officer, maybe you could argue it was justify. i wouldn't, because there ways to shoot someone lessen the risk of death, but I can understand why some people would.


But once the guy turns and runs? The immediate danger is over. If a guy is holding someone hostage and the snipers are there, and he's threatening to kill the hostage and pointing the gun, they might shoot him if they get a chance, if they determine that he's an immediate risk. But if he drops the gun and turns and runs, they're not shooting him in the back or the head. They're goign to capture him. The immediate threat is over.


Maybe this guy goes to trial and gets acquitted. That doesn't make what he did okay, just like other acquittals haven't exactly made someone suddenly innocent. If he is acquitted, it's just further proof of issues with the entire system (imo). Not just the legal system, but training and recruitment and everything else people are looking at to say "This isn't right."

It's not a matter of you or I "thinking" if deadly force was justified. It's if his training deemed it justifiable.

We are also assuming once he runs he is no longer a threat. Desperate people (and fleeing police is an act of desperation) do desperate things, does this end when he runs, hops a fence and hides? Or does his escape start with a car jacking and spiral from there?

This article is much more clear and detailed then I ever could be. The "Awful but Lawful" reality of this incident will be for the courts to handle.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ul/3189478001/

Atlanta police officers, according to the department's standard operating procedures, are prohibited from using force unless it is "reasonable and necessary to affect an arrest, prevent an escape, necessarily restrict the movement of a prisoner, defend the officer or another from physical assault, or to accomplish other lawful objectives."

In regards to use of lethal or nonlethal weapons, the Atlanta Police Department's policy references Georgia law, which allows for use of force when a person “reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.”

If a person is suspected of a felony, the department's policy allows for use of deadly force, but only if the officer “reasonably believes” that the suspect is in possession of a deadly weapon or object that is likely to result in serious injury, or if the officer believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the themselves or others.

Additionally, deadly force is allowed if there is probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime that either caused or threatened serious injury or if the officer believes that if the suspect’s escape would threaten serious injury to others.

Contributing: Will Peebles, Savannah Morning News

Also the noted that the officer who fired the shots has had numerous complaints against him

https://www.wsj.com/articles/atlanta...ts-11592328241

He also was involed in a cover up of a previous officer shooting

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-garrett-rolfe