+- 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 - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am assuming the video will clearly show the taser being fired twice.
But you know, for a fact, that the officer knew it was fired twice? You're making a definitive statement based on your own, just admitted, assumption. Also, say it was fired twice, how do you know that the officer was aware of this? The answer is you don't. Unless he stated he knew this when debriefed then there's no way to prove that he knew this.
Quote:I agree this is a false statement. You can use deadly force on a violent criminal who is a threat to others safety.
But unlike SSF I don't let my personal opiinion of the DA effect my opinion on the case. Instead I base my opinions on what I see of the facts and the law. In this case I don't think the officers were justified in using deadly force.
I don't have a personal opinion of the man, I have a professional one based on his public actions and the charges he filed. He might be a delightful person or a complete bastard, neither has anything to do with my opinion of his performance in these two cases. Also, I just gave a complete breakdown of why, legally, I think the DA screwed the pooch. This is an excellent example of the sanctimony and hypocrisy you engage in on a regular basis. "I'm speaking legally, SSF is speaking emotionally." Except no unbiased person reading my above post could come to that conclusion.
You "don't think" is a much better statement than "I know". However, even if you don't think deadly force was warranted there's a huge jump between that and second degree murder. If you assume the absolute worst in regards to this officer's actions then second degree murder is still a bridge too far to prove legally. That's why I used the Freddy Gray example as a perfect parallel. Mosby overcharged and everyone involved walked. The judge went so far as to say in court that she overcharged, albeit in a more circumspect manner than simply saying those words.
Quote:My opinion of what I think will happen to these officers is not just based on the law. It is based on my experience with juries. juries really don't care that much about the technical nuances of the law. Instead they want to do what they think is right.
If they care about the law they'll acquit the officer as well. Proving second degree murder in this case is virtually impossible. If the officer thought he had a valid reason for shooting Brooks then that right there precludes a second degree murder conviction. At that point your best hope, as a prosecutor, is the "depraved heart" angle, which is a very tough sell. A bench trial would be the smartest route for the defense, a jury trial is far too subject to public opinion. With the amount of people being doxed nowadays and protesters showing up at their home, I can't see many people willing to become a pariah, and be endlessly harassed, to acquit this officer.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 04:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But you know, for a fact, that the officer knew it was fired twice? You're making a definitive statement based on your own, just admitted, assumption. Also, say it was fired twice, how do you know that the officer was aware of this? The answer is you don't. Unless he stated he knew this when debriefed then there's no way to prove that he knew this.
I know as much about the evidence as you do.
Why is it okay for you to guarantee that say they will be aquitted when you have not analyzed the evidence either?
At least I know what the people who did analyze the video claim they saw. That is a lot more than you know.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-26-2020
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but. It seems Fred once said once you threaten an officer's life all bets are off. Now that it's actually happened we seem to be escalating the burden on the officer.
Somehow the officer was to know that although the victim struggled, ran, and fired. He was supposed to know in that split second of life and death that the victim was no longer a threat.
I think more and more people are seeing the fallacy in this and are now turning to the "He didn't render aid fast enough" stance.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I'm misremembering, but. It seems Fred once said once you threaten an officer's life all bets are off. Now that it's actually happened we seem to be escalating the burden on the officer.
No. I don't think ever said that. If I did I'd have to know the exact facts.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
The New York times has had access to both the audio and video recordings of he incident. These include police body cameras, security cameras, cruiser dash cams and a video from a bystander's phone.
It is pretty clear what happened for anyone interested in the truth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/videos-rayshard-brooks-shooting-atlanta-police.html
Brooks scuffles with both officers. He took a taser from officer Brosnon. As Rolfe draws his taser and aims it at Brooks Brooks fires his taser for the first time striking officer Brosnon. Rolfe was looking directly at Brooks when Brooks' taser flashed brightly. Rolfe fires his taser hittting Brooks somewhere on his body. Rolfe holds his taser trying to shock Brooks as he flees. Brooks turns and fires his taser a second time. Again their is a bright flash that is clearly visible. At this point Rolfe knows that Brooks does not have a dangerous weapon. Rolfe drops his taser, draws his handgun, and shoots three times. Brooks falls and Rolfe runs up screaming at him. When Brooks does not put his hands behind his back Rolfe violently kicks him. Rolfe and Brosnon stand over Brooks body for until another cruiser pulls into the lot. At this point Rolfe runs to retrieve his medical kit from his cruiser.
Rolfe knew he had ****** up. He released a statement through his attorney that he heard a sound "like a gunshot" befor he shot Brooks. Unfortunately they have him on video in the parking lot saying that Brooks just fired the taser at him. He is also on video asking Brosnon if the first shot hit him. There is clear video evidence that Rolfe knew the taser had been fired twice and that Brooks was unarmed when Rolfe shot him in the back.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am assuming the video will clearly show the taser being fired twice.
That's only half of the argument, though. The other half is proving the officer knew it had been discharged twice.
(06-26-2020, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree this is a false statement. You can use deadly force on a violent criminal who is a threat to others safety.
But unlike SSF I don't let my personal opiinion of the DA effect my opinion on the case. Instead I base my opinions on what I see of the facts and the law. In this case I don't think the officers were justified in using deadly force.
My opinion of what I think will happen to these officers is not just based on the law. It is based on my experience with juries. juries really don't care that much about the technical nuances of the law. Instead they want to do what they think is right. Even if a lawyer was able to convince a few jurors that the officers were justified or maybe just the victims of a "poor decision made in a split second under great pressure" they will most likely get convicted when the jurors see the video of the officer kicking Booker's body on the ground and standing on him refusing to render aid as he bled out.
And this is why the defendant will likely request a bench trial.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So as long as it's lower than past levels a nearly 20% increase in violent crime is nothing to worry about? Your logic seems a bit flawed here.
Since I didn't say "a nearly 20% increase in violent crime is nothing to worry about," there cannot be a "flaw" in my logic. Looking at the longer trend, this doesn't look like "violent crime is soaring" and policing in the UK is "tragically comical." In any case, the graph alone doesn't suggest the "police model" is the cause. If "the UK model is dying" as you claim, then the article you posted suggests Brits may be leaning towards police reform along the lines of US reformers.
Police forces are committed to tackling violent crime and those having offensive weapons, but need to work alongside other organisations like the Home Office "because this is not something that can be solved by policing alone," he said.
"Rising crime, increased terrorist activity and fewer police officers have put serious strain on the policing we offer to the public," he added.
"We are determining the additional capabilities and investment we need to drive down violence and catch more criminals - and we will make the case at the next government spending review."
(06-26-2020, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, I'd kindly point out that altering posts when quoting them is against the ToS, so kindly either rectify your having done so in multiple posts in this thread or remove them entirely. I thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
No idea what you are referring to. Were I to make such a claim I would cite/quote the offending posts.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 05:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's only half of the argument, though. The other half is proving the officer knew it had been discharged twice.
Check out the videos in the NYTimes link I provided.
These tasers flash real broight when they fire. Rolfe was looking rdirectly at Brooks both times that he fired. the first time Rolfe was actually aiming his taser at Brooks. the second time he was chasing Brooks through the parking lot when Brooks turns and fires again.
they have Rolfe on Video in the parking lot asking Brosnan if the first shot struck him and then saying that Brooks shot his taser at him while fleeing.
At one point another officer tells Rolfe to stop talking in front of the cameras. Hello famous "Blue Wall of Silence". You can'ty keep using the "few bad apples" argument when it looks like ALL officers are willing to cover up murder committed by their fellow officers.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I'm misremembering, but. It seems Fred once said once you threaten an officer's life all bets are off. Now that it's actually happened we seem to be escalating the burden on the officer.
Somehow the officer was to know that although the victim struggled, ran, and fired. He was supposed to know in that split second of life and death that the victim was no longer a threat.
I think more and more people are seeing the fallacy in this and are now turning to the "He didn't render aid fast enough" stance.
I am still not seeing "the fallacy." Rolfe shot Brooks in the back. As I noted in an earlier post, Federal/Georgia law forbids lethal force unless the officer directly threatened with death or grievous bodily harm, or presents that threat to others.
The law does not say that if you struggle with a police officer and then flee, the officer is free to shoot--in a parking lot with people, no less.
It might indeed be that "once you threaten an officers life, all bets are off," but that's the problem of police accountability that the current reform movement wants to address.
I am not worried about an "escalating burden" on an officer who has done this before. He should not be on the streets wearing a badge and a gun.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 03:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: [i]"The Atlanta policy says you cannot fire a Taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said.
Howard said that at the time Rolfe aimed and fired at Brooks' back from 18 feet, 3 inches away, "Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and presented no danger to him."[/i]
The underlined and enlarged is a patently false statement, legally. More evidence that Howard is grossly incompetent. Don't take my word for it, Fred has pointed this out multiple time in this thread.
Looks to me like the DA is constructing an additional a foriori argument based upon existing taser law.
If he is correct that Atlanta Policy says police cannot fire a taser at someone who is running away, then he is inferring that it's even more the case that a policeman with a handgun should not be firing at a fleeing suspect's back.
By this time he has already made clear how he aligns Rolfe's actions with existing laws governing lethal force (as mentioned above). He is not claiming "the law says you can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away" UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
The succeeding comments confirm this, in the DA's conclusion that Brooks "presented no danger to him"--referencing the legal criterion for lethal force. That's why, if you can't shoot a fleeing suspect (who presents no danger) with a taser, then you certainly cannot shoot that fleeing suspect in the back with a handgun.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 05:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can'ty keep using the "few bad apples" argument when it looks like ALL officers are willing to cover up murder committed by their fellow officers.
This is a bit of a tangent, but the saying is shortened from "a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch." When people use that defense for groups, like police, for instance, I always wonder if they realize that they are admitting that they are all spoiled because of the presence of those few bad apples.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
Let me show you how fair I can be.
If Rolfe had shot the fleeing Brooks in the back BEFORE Brooks fired the taser the second time then the DA should not have charged him.
I would not have agreed because I don't consider a taser a deadly weapon, but if the DA had already said a taser was a deadly weapon then the shooting would have been justified.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
Here is a good question.
Even if a taser is not a deadly weapon should it be classified as a deadly weapon when used against an armed police officer because if the criminal can taze the officer then he would have control of the officers gun?
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 05:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Check out the videos in the NYTimes link I provided.Did the officer get the chance to "check out" the videos you provided before he had to make a split second decision against a fleeing person that had just fired at him?
These tasers flash real broight when they fire. Rolfe was looking rdirectly at Brooks both times that he fired. the first time Rolfe was actually aiming his taser at Brooks. the second time he was chasing Brooks through the parking lot when Brooks turns and fires again.
they have Rolfe on Video in the parking lot asking Brosnan if the first shot struck him and then saying that Brooks shot his taser at him while fleeing.
At one point another officer tells Rolfe to stop talking in front of the cameras. Hello famous "Blue Wall of Silence". You can'ty keep using the "few bad apples" argument when it looks like ALL officers are willing to cover up murder committed by their fellow officers.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 05:34 PM)Dill Wrote: I am still not seeing "the fallacy." Rolfe shot Brooks in the back. As I noted in an earlier post, Federal/Georgia law forbids lethal force unless the officer directly threatened with death or grievous bodily harm, or presents that threat to others.
The law does not say that if you struggle with a police officer and then flee, the officer is free to shoot--in a parking lot with people, no less.
It might indeed be that "once you threaten an officers life, all bets are off," but that's the problem of police accountability that the current reform movement wants to address.
I am not worried about an "escalating burden" on an officer who has done this before. He should not be on the streets wearing a badge and a gun.
I have 0 idea how many times I can say this: Brooks was not shot for fleeing.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have 0 idea how many times I can say this: Brooks was not shot for fleeing.
You are 100% correct.
Brooks was not shot for fleeing.
I will even be as fair as possible and say that Brooks was not shot for racists reasons.
But Brooks was not shot in the name of justice or protecting anyone either.
Brooks was shot in a rage.
For a half hour or so Rolfe was one of the most professional and reasonable law enforcement officers I have ever seen. I watch a lot of videos, and many cops that I know as nice guys affect an aggressive, domineering attitude when dealing with suspects. But Rolfe was cordial and treated Brooks with full respect. Then that son-of-a-***** Brooks punched him in the face and shot a taser at him. He was in a rage when he killed Brooks. That is why he kicked Brooks' body as he lay dying. That is why he didn't go for his first aid kit until another cruiser rolled up. If you watch the videos you can see that he was still in a rage when he described being shot at to the other officvers.
So I don't think it is first degree murder. In Tenneessee this would be a 2nd degree murder. That is an intentional killing but without premeditation. Usually defined as a murder committed "in a heat of passion" or under the influence of an "uncontrollable impulse".
No matter how much some of you may sympathize with Rolfe's rage it still is not an excuse for murder.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-27-2020
(06-26-2020, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dill: Rolfe shot Brooks in the back. As I noted in an earlier post, Federal/Georgia law forbids lethal force unless the officer directly threatened with death or grievous bodily harm, or presents that threat to others.
The law does not say that if you struggle with a police officer and then flee, the officer is free to shoot--in a parking lot with people, no less.
The law does not say that if you struggle with a police officer and then flee, the officer is free to shoot--in a parking lot with people, no less.
I have 0 idea how many times I can say this: Brooks was not shot for fleeing.
I have 0 idea how many times I can say this--The law cares about this point:
was the fleeing suspect shot in self defense or to defend others against death or serious bodily injury?
The prosecution is then interested not in whether Brooks was shot FOR fleeing, but whether he could pose a threat to the shooter if shot WHILE fleeing.
If it is determined that the officer did not shoot Brooks in the back to defend himself or others from an immediate threat, the shooting was in violation of the law.
Then it doesn't matter if Brooks was shot for fleeing or target practice or because he made some officers look bad.
Whatever reason was the wrong reason.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-27-2020
(06-26-2020, 07:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me show you how fair I can be.
If Rolfe had shot the fleeing Brooks in the back BEFORE Brooks fired the taser the second time then the DA should not have charged him.
I would not have agreed because I don't consider a taser a deadly weapon, but if the DA had already said a taser was a deadly weapon then the shooting would have been justified.
One question here is surely how is the weapon classified by police and the law.
The National Institute of Justice, has developed a 7-stage continuum, beginning with #1 "Police presence" and rising to #6 "less-than-lethal methods" (pepper spray, blunt impact, and "conducted energy devices" (tasers)), and #7 "lethal force"--i.e., firearms.
This continuum has been adopted in many states, and it defines tasers as "less-than-lethal"--even though people occasionally die from tazing. As a result, judgments about how police use them generally fit into this category.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum
A police baton could kill someone, but it is generally not classified as a lethal weapon. The Atlanta DA charged police who used a taser on two college students with aggravated assault, which implies use of a lethal weapon or use of one with intent to cause grievous harm. In charging police for combing tazing with violent beating, it is not clear he was classifying all tasers and uses of tasers as lethal force.
As I understand the law, if I held an ordinary fork to your jugular and threatened your life, I could be charged with aggravated assault, but that wouldn't imply that from now on, forks are classified as legal weapons. I' d be interested in hearing a lawyers view on this.
RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 02:14 AM)Dill Wrote: One question here is surely how is the weapon classified by police and the law.
The National Institute of Justice, has developed a 7-stage continuum, beginning with #1 "Police presence" and rising to #6 "less-than-lethal methods" (pepper spray, blunt impact, and "conducted energy devices" (tasers)), and #7 "lethal force"--i.e., firearms.
This continuum has been adopted in many states, and it defines tasers as "less-than-lethal"--even though people occasionally die from tazing. As a result, judgments about how police use them generally fit into this category.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum
I was waiting for someone other than me to bring this up. The use of force continuum, in practice, states you use a level of force one level higher than that used against you. There are always exceptions, but that's the general policy. In this instance how the NIJ categorizes taser use is immaterial, as they aren't the ones prosecuting cases with wildly conflicting, and contradictory, charges.
Quote:A police baton could kill someone, but it is generally not classified as a lethal weapon. The Atlanta DA charged police who used a taser on two college students with aggravated assault, which implies use of a lethal weapon or use of one with intent to cause grievous harm.
Incorrect, it does not imply use of deadly force, it explicitly states it. The penal code section under which those officers are charged specifically states that the use of deadly force has been used in the commission of the offense. There is no wiggle room in this regard.
Quote:In charging police for combing tazing with violent beating, it is not clear he was classifying all tasers and uses of tasers as lethal force.
A rather ambiguous term, "violent beating". I'll use the CA standard, because that's what I know. The closest analogy to the charges against the college student officers would be 245(a)(1) PC, assault with a deadly weapon. It is worth noting that even this charge is a "wobbler" in CA, meaning it can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor (although it is very rare for it to be charged as a misdemeanor). In order to align with your line of thinking the officers involved would have to had engaged in assaultive conduct, outside of the taser use, that clearly put the student's life in jeopardy. The most common example is kicking someone in the head (I'd point out that I've dealt with people who took their shoes off before kicking someone in the head as they believed that would prevent them from being charged with ADW assault). If not then the sole use of the taser provided the grounds for the ADW assault case. If this is so then the case against the Brooks shooter cannot, by legal definition, be murder. If deadly force is used against an LEO then they have the legal right, even obligation, to respond in kind. It is this point right here where the Fulton County DA digs a hole he will not be able to extricate himself from.
Quote:As I understand the law, if I held an ordinary fork to your jugular and threatened your life, I could be charged with aggravated assault, but that wouldn't imply that from now on, forks are classified as legal weapons. I' d be interested in hearing a lawyers view on this.
This is a fair question. I'll answer it thusly; a kitchen knife, fork or other sharp implement is not a deadly weapon (unless you're in the UK) as long as it's in the kitchen. The minute you remove it from its legitimate sphere of use it becomes a deadly weapon. A BBQ fork could easily cause fatal wounds, but if it's being used to flip burgers and brauts it's not a deadly weapon. The taser question is rather different. The taser has no application outside of its sole intended use. Hence there is no question as to the method of use or the arena in which it is used. Can you use a taser for any purpose other than incapacitating a person? Can you cook with it or do anything other than its designed function? Clearly the answer is no. Consequently its use is either a use of deadly force or it is not. While there are extreme exceptions, such as shooting a dart into someone's eyeball at close range, tasers are, by definition, a less than lethal weapon. The Fulton County DA decided to the contrary, applying emotional reasons instead of legal ones, in the use of them against those college students (which I will again say was completely unjustified and the officers deserved to be charged with a crime). However, as often occurs, when you make a decision based on emotion, politics or any other criteria other than hard facts, later events rose up to bite him in the ass. He now has to defend a completely contrary position, that the use of a taser is absolutely not deadly force (verbatim from his mouth).
In so doing he has destroyed his ability to effectively prosecute either case. You cannot take diametrically opposed positions on two high profile cases and expect to prevail in either. While the DA is an elected position, which I suspect highly motivated his decisions in both cases, judges often are not. Even if they are they tend (not always, but absolutely usually) to rule dispassionately based on the law. This being the case don't be surprised when every single officer in both cases walks completely. This is the consequence of putting politics above integrity and the law as written.
RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2020
(06-26-2020, 07:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a good question.
Even if a taser is not a deadly weapon should it be classified as a deadly weapon when used against an armed police officer because if the criminal can taze the officer then he would have control of the officers gun?
You already know the answer to this, tell the class.