Bad Boys II - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Bad Boys II (/Thread-Bad-Boys-II) |
RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-17-2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/16/police-keep-using-twitter-misinformation-rumor-mongering-about-protesters/#comments-wrapper Quote:Police keep using Twitter for misinformation and rumor-mongering about protesters RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Without knowing about the first case, is there more to that charge than just the weapon used? I'll have to read up on it. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/da-charges-six-apd-officers-use-excessive-force-2-college-students/PY2HPZW5TZA3DCVHDTRHQYJJAA/ (06-17-2020, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: That said I don't believe a taser is lethal when used properly. I also don't believe someone who just took one from an officer knows how to aim and fire one while running either so I don't find them a lethal threat to anyone. Actually, a taser is more dangerous in the hands of someone untrained and using it recklessly. RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-17-2020 Musical interlude for my friend Dino: Reading this and other threads I assume he's a huge fan of a one man band RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 12:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/da-charges-six-apd-officers-use-excessive-force-2-college-students/PY2HPZW5TZA3DCVHDTRHQYJJAA/ Wouldn't it be less likely to hit/be effective? It would be like me aiming and shooting versus someone who has, well, ever fired a gun before...lol. RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Musical interlude for my friend Dino: Weird. I figured you post someone whistling past the graveyard. RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wouldn't it be less likely to hit/be effective? It would be like me aiming and shooting versus someone who has, well, ever fired a gun before...lol. Training with a taser involves where to fire it so the probes stick and it is most effective without being dangerous (though there are cases of individuals being tased and dying or have serious health issues). Hit someone with a taser int he wrong place and it can be very dangerous. RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-17-2020 (06-16-2020, 02:17 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now. Not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about the cops who say they are not responsible for their actions or the protestors or who? RE: Bad Boys II - Nately120 - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what you mean by this. Or the president who is less "The buck stops here" and more "I take no responsibility." RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Training with a taser involves where to fire it so the probes stick and it is most effective without being dangerous (though there are cases of individuals being tased and dying or have serious health issues). Hit someone with a taser int he wrong place and it can be very dangerous. I can understand that. I suppose it should be "dangerous" then. Is till feel like it was less likely to be dangerous by a guy running backwards and aiming wildly. Less than if he was firing a gun, say. RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-17-2020 Meanwhile... https://news.yahoo.com/police-report-says-breonna-taylor-223400545.html Quote:Police Report Says Breonna Taylor Had No Injuries Video at the link. RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-17-2020 We are all having this discussion in part because protests against police brutality swept the nation following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, and continue still. The protests have crystallized into a movement for sweeping police reform. Reform activists argue that cases like Floyd's are not the result of a few "bad apples," but recur year after year in many different communities also as an expression of systemic racism, enabled by a toxic "police culture" (discussed below) which police cannot be trusted to fix themselves. We are having a national debate about this now, as "the other side" argues there is no such racism and police are just fine--except for a few bad apples, whose prosecution we should concentrate on in ways that don't undermine public trust in the police as a whole or shift funding priorities. Banning choke holds ok, though. This national debate means that in the next year, some 3-5 cases of excessive police action (in addition to Floyd's) will receive closer scrutiny from the press, politicians, and reform activists, according to how each highlights some aspect of the above-mentioned "police culture" on interpretation of existing law, on the behavior of prosecutors who work daily with the police, and upon the training often appealed to when deciding whether an officer's actions were "reasonable." Reformers will use these cases to test and push the reform they seek, and to measure whether any such reform is actually occurring. Quite likely the Brooks case will be one of these 3-5. The following quote highlights the essential points the reformers of "police culture" would like to see addressed . . . (06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What defense? Has the former officer been charged with a crime? Also, if charged the officer will certainly go for a bench trial in which he will be sure to walk. Quite honestly, if the DA files charges he'll just be pulling a Mosby, filing charges to appease a mob instead of actual doing their job properly. Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed. Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing. This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students. At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person. . . . starting with a bench trial option in which an officer who has been investigated 12 times in the last five years* and disciplined at least once for excessive force "will be sure to walk" pro forma after shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Or maybe charged with nothing. The "mob" of voters who want reform will not likely find that a reasonable outcome. If we have arrived at a point where there is "zero chance" that such an officer can be charged for shooting a DUI stop in the back for taking his taser--and can "get his job back"--that will perfectly illustrate the problem they want addressed. If there is a jury trial, then at some point the prosecution is going to introduce a still photo of Officer Rolfe with his gun pointed at Brook's back as Brooks runs away, the moment before Rolfe fires. They will align this moment with the existing Georgia statute on an officer's use of lethal force "only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person." They will ask, first, if the officer appears to be preventing great bodily injury to himself as he fires at Brooks' back, regardless of whether he was in danger earlier. Then they will ask if the inebriated Brooks appears to threaten "death or great bodily injury" to others with his already fired taser. Did firing at him in a residential area (and missing once) increase or decrease risk of injury to others? The jury will hear some police experts testify that the officers actions were "in line with police training," and therefore ok, but other experts will emphasize not only the back shot, but the rejected option--let him flee, call for back up--and argue the actions were not so in line. For MSM news commentators following the trial, this will raise questions about that training, the relative emphasis on "shoot for body mass" as opposed to "let him run"--all to be put before the public. (06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, they could have let him run with the weapon he was actively using against them. Of course, you have the benefit of watching this scenario from your chair, not having just fought the guy on the ground and had him steal your weapon. The officer in question had to make a split second decision and IMO, he did not act inappropriately. I do appreciate your statement though, it shows just how unreasonable many people can be when analyzing police use of force decision. Certainly embarrassing that Brooks manhandled two police officers and wrested a weapon of intermediate force (classified with pepper spray and impact weapons) away from them and then "fired" it in flight. A jury might wonder if shame and anger factored into Rolfe's "split second decision." I suspect we are going to hear a lot more about the "could have let him run" option. We'll read of comparable cases, of officers who did "let him run," whether that increased or decreased risk to the public, whether more white than black suspects receive the benefit of the doubt, etc. and consider how comfortable police departments and others are with officers exercising split-second decisions in favor of life. And we'll hear some argue that the choice between letting Brooks run and killing him would just be very hard for any reasonable person. And people will have to decide if they really want law officers, and prosecutors, to assume such decisions are so "very hard" in such cases that either option is “appropriate.” That will be a key to deciding how reasonable or unreasonable people are when, as voters, they view police actions from their chairs. One side of this debate will focus on history, police training, statistics and trial processes to reframe existing standards of "appropriate" actions. Calling them "unreasonable" might not work well when "reasonable" is itself what is in question. *Including once failing to report discharging his firearm (with other police officers) at a truck thief who rammed his vehicle, and who was also shot in the back. According to this Guardian article, it is not clear that Rolfe was ever disciplined for this, though an angry judge flagged it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/17/rayshard-brooks-shooting-police-officer-cover-up-accusations-garrett-rolfe RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Without knowing about the first case, is there more to that charge than just the weapon used? I'll have to read up on it. Once fired, there is no chance of "firing" it again to embed those little darts. It will still shock but has to be jammed against the body now. Once Brooks missed, and ran, there was no danger of him still "shooting" an officer with an, in any case, less than lethal weapon. RE: Bad Boys II - masonbengals fan - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what you mean by this. Turn the tv on it's everywhere. I was referring to the Rashard Brooks shooting when I posted it. But that line of thinking has become the norm. RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 04:53 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Turn the tv on it's everywhere. I was referring to the Rashard Brooks shooting when I posted it. But that line of thinking has become the norm. Sorry, but I still don't get your point. People have been blaming other people for thousands of years. There is no "new" lack of individual personal responsibility. RE: Bad Boys II - masonbengals fan - 06-17-2020 Fred, this should speak for itself. "What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now. It's always somebody else's fault." I never said it was a new line of thinking just that I believe it's becoming more prevalent. You are welcome to disagree. RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-17-2020 And this just in. Looks like some charges will be filed against Officer Garret Rolfe. Atlanta Police officer who killed Rayshard Brooks charged with felony murder https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-shooting-wednesday/index.html The Atlanta Police officer who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks at a Wendy's parking lot last week was charged with felony murder, and the other officer on scene was charged with aggravated assault, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced Wednesday. The decision comes just five days after Brooks was shot twice in the back in Atlanta during an attempted arrest. Officer Garrett Rolfe, who shot at Brooks three times, faces 11 charges in all, and officer Devin Brosnan, who was also on scene, faces three charges. After shooting Brooks, Rolfe said "I got him" and kicked him, and Brosnan then stood on Brooks' shoulder, Howard said. The officers did not provide medical aid to Brooks for over two minutes after shooting him, Howard said. Their demeanor after the shooting "did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks, but reflected other kinds of emotions," Howard said. Brosnan has agreed to be a state's witness, Howard said. "I don't remember a circumstance where we had an officer, particularly in a case this important, to step forward and say that they would cooperate with the state," he said. Two of the counts against Rolfe are for aggravated assault related to a bullet he fired that hit an occupied vehicle nearby in the Wendy's lot. Brosnan's three charges include two counts of violations of oath of office. ... with the felony murder charge, Rolfe could face the death penalty if convicted. Not looking like a bench trial. "The Mob" will be pretty angry if this guy gets his job back. RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 05:28 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Fred, this should speak for itself. I'm willing to agree if you are talking about long-term tendency in US culture, but without examples it is hard to know what you mean. Trump comes to mind as the poster boy for "no personal responsibility," but the trend certainly predates him, if we are talking about the same thing. However, I do share Fred's puzzlement as to how it applies to the Brooks case. It could mean officers and police are not taking responsibility for bad decisions, or that those demanding justice for Brooks are mitigating Brooks responsibility, assuming his "failure to comply" makes him solely responsible for his death. If the latter than I don't agree as that pretty much destroys police accountability. RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-17-2020 (06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed. Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing. This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students. At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person. The officers knew that the victim had no viable weapon. He was no threat as he ran away. Deadly force was not authorized in that situation. The officers shot Brooks in the back and also shot into the car where passengers were still seated. Then after they shot Brooks in the back they kicked him while he was on the ground. Stood on him while he was dying, and then refused to render and medical assistance. SSF is a perfect example of how a LEO can not see the truth and will do anything to defend the actions of a fellow LEO. He sees no crime when a law enforcement officer kicks a helpless defendant lying on the ground. He even thinks the officer should get his job back. Any cop who supports a "bad apple" is a bad apple himself. RE: Bad Boys II - Nately120 - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 04:53 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Turn the tv on it's everywhere. I was referring to the Rashard Brooks shooting when I posted it. But that line of thinking has become the norm. As opposed to what, the 14th century where people were purchasing indulgences from the church? I tells ya, the notion that "being offended" and "blaming other people" is some sort of new fad is the biggest political lark of 'em all. RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-17-2020 (06-17-2020, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The officers knew that the victim had no viable weapon. He was no threat as he ran away. Deadly force was not authorized in that situation.Seems I've seen you post thoughts contrary to this in the past. Seems I recall you once said "Once you assault an officer all bets are off" Of course I could be misremembering. |