Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[runrussellrun]

I didn't realize that we were 'discussing and fixing problems with our government'. I keep seeing rioting and anarchy.

You're using the actions of a few as an excuse to not look at the actual problems.

And you're doing it intentionally. So are millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, back with those of us who aren't pro-government zealots, looking for excuses not to so much as look at problems in our government, let alone fix them.....the issue is being discussed, and laws are being proposed and passed.

C'mon a fan, you know Pete's a racist, or a dick, most likely both. His exchanges are boring, often exhausting, on rare occasion entertaining...but mostly boring. Engaging with him offers nothing. Worthless debate. Trolling. Changes no minds. Only brings him satisfaction.

Racism in America is serious, Pete is not.

I just hacked....Peter Brown IS doc B. He is jealous of the love that the ole time laxpower guy got, the gentleman that had over 20 different names. And none because he got banned. ball dough is a chump....let laxpower sink without warning. same for all the other chump mods, including old salt, horrible frank sinatra lover, and the ultimate clown, loyola fan whatever his name is.

meanwhile, doc b IS peter brown. unless there are really others that refuse to answer simple questions, like cradle.

[runrussellrun]

There was only one safe outcome -- his immediate incarceration, with adjudication initiated before he had the opportunity to get behind the wheel again. His car was his lethal weapon.

Just false as a matter of factual reality. Please tell us exactly what safety risk the perp/victim posed at that point?

The guy was on foot and out of his car. The cops had custody of his car. So the chance of him using HIS car to cause harm is 0.00%.

It is the job of the cops to deal with criminals and drunks and misbehavers. If they are Keystone cops incompetent in doing those things, then they need a different line of work.

Being scared is also a reason to find another job. Shooting Americans in the back is honorable now. Just like lying is no big deal. Man we have fallen fast.

While punching out cops by privileged white lax bros is meritorious, because the cops have attitude.

It was a rental car. Nothing stopping him from going home & driving his sisters black Volvo.
You think a minor detail like not having his license would stop a drunk like him ?

Keystone cops ? Everything was going patiently & professionally until Brooks freaked out, resisted & assaulted them. Would you have preferred they restrain him with a choke hold until they could handcuff him ? Second guessing by desk bound lawyers who risk the danger of paper cuts.

What was his drunk driving record? I haven’t looked. You may have.

just wow.........priors don't matter in the court of law......most of the time.

law is awesome.

TLD, clearly, you've never sat on a jury ....too essential selling big pharma stocks to COPs pension.....

[old salt]

Murder. That’s what happened. I’ve been punched in the face plenty of times, punched a few as well, better record growing up than Peter Mc Neely but not Roy Jones level and has my share that looked like I was in the other end of Deonte Wilder.

I’d rather get punched in the face numerous times by Wilder than shot in the back and killed forever.

Since you lie to speculate so much in your mythical police state, how about the fact he slept
In the car. Perhaps even recognition once he heck up that he needed to get off the road? As possible and probably more likely than your speculative position also ignoring the very long calm discussion before anything happened.

Your fighting exploits are irrelevant. Cops don't get paid to get sucker punched by out-of-control, drunks.
Did you do anything as stupid as punching a cop ?

Did you bother watching the video ? Brooks didn't pull over to sleep it off. He passed out in the drive thru line. Fortunately, he must have put it in park. He blocked traffic until Wendy's called 911, Brosnan responded & had to wake him up 3 times before he moved to a parking spot. Even then he drove up over the curb & had to back down. He had no intention to stop driving, He kept insisting he was ok to drive.

I have and I’ve spoken with people who now have direct involvement in this so I have an idea what I’m talking about. You’re relying on your self selected news stories and lots of speculation.

Never punched a cop but you still don’t get it, totally ok with killing people, and yeah, occasionally a cop is going to get punched and that should never mean it’s ok to shoot the guy in the back. You just don’t get how precious life is.

I'm not ok with the shooting. I don't think Rolfe had unlawful intent, even in the moment. I don't know his record, but watching the video, i thought he was highly professional, up until the instant he unholstered his weapon.
Based on what happened after that -- I'd hope to have him first through the door at the next school shooting.
I don't think Brooks should be absolved of responsibility.
There's a reason the laws on officer involved shootings are written as they are. Had this happened before the Floyd shooting, Rolfe would be on admin duty while this was investigated & probably would not be charged. The Mayor & Prosecutor are offering him up to the lynch mob, while making Brooks a martyr. A respected progressive Police Chief has also been sacrificed.
Who would you trust to give your kids a ride home -- Brooks or Rolfe ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

There was only one safe outcome -- his immediate incarceration, with adjudication initiated before he had the opportunity to get behind the wheel again. His car was his lethal weapon.

Just false as a matter of factual reality. Please tell us exactly what safety risk the perp/victim posed at that point?

The guy was on foot and out of his car. The cops had custody of his car. So the chance of him using HIS car to cause harm is 0.00%.

It is the job of the cops to deal with criminals and drunks and misbehavers. If they are Keystone cops incompetent in doing those things, then they need a different line of work.

Being scared is also a reason to find another job. Shooting Americans in the back is honorable now. Just like lying is no big deal. Man we have fallen fast.

While punching out cops by privileged white lax bros is meritorious, because the cops have attitude.

It was a rental car. Nothing stopping him from going home & driving his sisters black Volvo.
You think a minor detail like not having his license would stop a drunk like him ?

Keystone cops ? Everything was going patiently & professionally until Brooks freaked out, resisted & assaulted them. Would you have preferred they restrain him with a choke hold until they could handcuff him ? Second guessing by desk bound lawyers who risk the danger of paper cuts.

What was his drunk driving record? I haven’t looked. You may have.

just wow.........priors don't matter in the court of law......most of the time.

law is awesome.

TLD, clearly, you've never sat on a jury ....too essential selling big pharma stocks to COPs pension.....

That dude was running to get behind the wheel of another car so that he could drive drunk. Good thing the cop shot him in the back before he could steal a car and take off driving.

[Farfromgeneva]

I didn't realize that we were 'discussing and fixing problems with our government'. I keep seeing rioting and anarchy.

You're using the actions of a few as an excuse to not look at the actual problems.

And you're doing it intentionally. So are millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, back with those of us who aren't pro-government zealots, looking for excuses not to so much as look at problems in our government, let alone fix them.....the issue is being discussed, and laws are being proposed and passed.

C'mon a fan, you know Pete's a racist, or a dick, most likely both. His exchanges are boring, often exhausting, on rare occasion entertaining...but mostly boring. Engaging with him offers nothing. Worthless debate. Trolling. Changes no minds. Only brings him satisfaction.

Racism in America is serious, Pete is not.

I just hacked....Peter Brown IS doc B. He is jealous of the love that the ole time laxpower guy got, the gentleman that had over 20 different names. And none because he got banned. ball dough is a chump....let laxpower sink without warning. same for all the other chump mods, including old salt, horrible frank sinatra lover, and the ultimate clown, loyola fan whatever his name is.

meanwhile, doc b IS peter brown. unless there are really others that refuse to answer simple questions, like cradle.

While the notion is hilarious to me and may have some credence, this seems like throwing massive boulders through a thin glass house. Are we at a point of you acknowledging, FattyLax, LaxWheatfield and other pseudonyms?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I didn't realize that we were 'discussing and fixing problems with our government'. I keep seeing rioting and anarchy.

You're using the actions of a few as an excuse to not look at the actual problems.

And you're doing it intentionally. So are millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, back with those of us who aren't pro-government zealots, looking for excuses not to so much as look at problems in our government, let alone fix them.....the issue is being discussed, and laws are being proposed and passed.

C'mon a fan, you know Pete's a racist, or a dick, most likely both. His exchanges are boring, often exhausting, on rare occasion entertaining...but mostly boring. Engaging with him offers nothing. Worthless debate. Trolling. Changes no minds. Only brings him satisfaction.

Racism in America is serious, Pete is not.

I just hacked....Peter Brown IS doc B. He is jealous of the love that the ole time laxpower guy got, the gentleman that had over 20 different names. And none because he got banned. ball dough is a chump....let laxpower sink without warning. same for all the other chump mods, including old salt, horrible frank sinatra lover, and the ultimate clown, loyola fan whatever his name is.

meanwhile, doc b IS peter brown. unless there are really others that refuse to answer simple questions, like cradle.

I forgot Chairman was a moderator

And Old Salt... a “moderator”..

[old salt]

Is this the record of a bad cop ? Looks like he was doing what he was trained & encouraged to do. Get drunk drivers off the road.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/lo ... 4de863a782

[ggait]

I’m not exactly sure what the legal standard is in Georgia for cops to shoot someone, but I suspect it is something like the shootee must present an imminent threat to the officer or civilians of death or serious bodily harm. The he-might-go-home-and-steal-his-sister’s-car scenario is just too attenuated in the eyes of the law to justify shooting the guy in the back.

Yup. Bill's right; Salty is wrong.

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.

Nothing about going home, stealing a car, etc. etc. etc.

Apparently Salty believes that you can shoot the butterfly in China. Because if you allow it to flap its wings, it could cause a hurricane in the Carribean. Thankfully the law says that is bull shirt.

[Farfromgeneva]

The line of argument just doesn’t make any sense.

Maybe I should get shot because one day I may do something messed up. In the back.

[old salt]

The line of argument just doesn’t make any sense.

Maybe I should get shot because one day I may do something messed up. In the back.

Not necessary. Next time your feeling frisky, have a few pops & go punch out a cop.
See how it works out for you. Apparently you have a few scores to settle in that regard.

[old salt]

I’m not exactly sure what the legal standard is in Georgia for cops to shoot someone, but I suspect it is something like the shootee must present an imminent threat to the officer or civilians of death or serious bodily harm. The he-might-go-home-and-steal-his-sister’s-car scenario is just too attenuated in the eyes of the law to justify shooting the guy in the back.

Yup. Bill's right; Salty is wrong.

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.

Nothing about going home, stealing a car, etc. etc. etc.

Apparently Salty believes that you can shoot the butterfly in China. Because if you allow it to flap its wings, it could cause a hurricane in the Carribean. Thankfully the law says that is bull shirt.

That's for a Grand Jury to decide, if the Prosecutor has the guts try that route.
If not, it'll be up to a trial jury, while the Mayor watches her city burn.

[Farfromgeneva]

The line of argument just doesn’t make any sense.

Maybe I should get shot because one day I may do something messed up. In the back.

Not necessary. Next time your feeling frisky, have a few pops & go punch out a cop.
See how it works out for you. Apparently you have a few scores to settle in that regard.

I’d expect to get my ass whooped with a stick, which is still wrong but figure it’d earn the Rodney king treatment.

But not shot...

[Brooklyn]

Life in tRUMP's America:


A Black pastor who called 911 after alleged attack was arrested. The sheriff apologized.
Pastor Leon McCray said he "was handcuffed in front of my assaulters," and "they waved at me as I go down the road... . Do you know how disturbing that is?"


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bl ... d-n1231005


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6726WS ... =emb_title


.... when authorities arrived, they didn't ask McCray what happened, he said. They spoke to the white family of five who had just attacked him, he said.

"I was not given an opportunity to speak," said McCray, adding that officers told him they had to arrest him for brandishing a gun. "And I said, what about the trespassing and the assault?"

Instead, McCray "was handcuffed in front of my assaulters" by an officer who has known him from the community for over 20 years, he said, adding "they waved at me as I go down the road... . Do you know how disturbing that is?"

It was "a day that changed my life," the pastor said.



Gotta give kudos to the forum right wingers for not saying Blame Obama like they used to in the past.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Is this the record of a bad cop ? Looks like he was doing what he was trained & encouraged to do. Get drunk drivers off the road.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/lo ... 4de863a782

Why was he fired? Read the link. He should have taken his course work more seriously. He would possibly still have a job.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I’m not exactly sure what the legal standard is in Georgia for cops to shoot someone, but I suspect it is something like the shootee must present an imminent threat to the officer or civilians of death or serious bodily harm. The he-might-go-home-and-steal-his-sister’s-car scenario is just too attenuated in the eyes of the law to justify shooting the guy in the back.

Yup. Bill's right; Salty is wrong.

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.

Nothing about going home, stealing a car, etc. etc. etc.

Apparently Salty believes that you can shoot the butterfly in China. Because if you allow it to flap its wings, it could cause a hurricane in the Carribean. Thankfully the law says that is bull shirt.

That's for a Grand Jury to decide, if the Prosecutor has the guts try that route.
If not, it'll be up to a trial jury, while the Mayor watches her city burn.

How many structures burned? These winners were also fired and they didn’t kill anyone. Can’t remember if you complained about it.

[Farfromgeneva]

I’m not exactly sure what the legal standard is in Georgia for cops to shoot someone, but I suspect it is something like the shootee must present an imminent threat to the officer or civilians of death or serious bodily harm. The he-might-go-home-and-steal-his-sister’s-car scenario is just too attenuated in the eyes of the law to justify shooting the guy in the back.

Yup. Bill's right; Salty is wrong.

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.

Nothing about going home, stealing a car, etc. etc. etc.

Apparently Salty believes that you can shoot the butterfly in China. Because if you allow it to flap its wings, it could cause a hurricane in the Carribean. Thankfully the law says that is bull shirt.

That's for a Grand Jury to decide, if the Prosecutor has the guts try that route.
If not, it'll be up to a trial jury, while the Mayor watches her city burn.

But you’re ok with Floyd not being given due process or the opportunity with a grand jury? Would’ve been nice if it could’ve gone down that way and the one who had all the power in this situation took that option off the table.

And sure just malign the entire legal system in a city you know nothing about to protect a guy who killed a guy by shooting him in the back. That’s the gangbanger thug approach.

At least I understand your position. Police state. Those with authority should have broad latitude including killing citizens and shooting in public endangering others. I certainly understand your position now.

[MDlaxfan76]

The first cop was a decent guy. The cop that shot him was just the type you run across. Already a bad disposition when he arrived. He needed a new job. So the guy tussles with the cops so they can shoot him? Like I said, I know two high school lacrosse players that punched cops and nothing much happened to them. Wrestled to the ground. No weapons drawn. Of course both had been drinking.

Nice job Dad, living up to your screen name. Did you coach those 2 lax bro knuckleheads too ?
No big deal, of course they'd been drinking. That makes it ok. Sad.

Did your 2 drunken lax bro proteges throw off 2 cops, punch them, take their weapon & flee.
...& the problem was the cop's attitude ?
I can't believe how casual you all are about Brooks drunk driving. No prob. Call him a cab. He won't do it again.

Rolfe patiently & professionally questioned & tested Brooks. He did not escalate a very difficult, potentially dangerous situation. He gave Brooks every opportunity. Brooks just keep digging his hole deeper. Brooks was a risk who needed to be arrested, removed from the road & his driving privileges revoked before he killed someone on the road, maybe his daughters.

You think Brooks posed no immediate risk ? He was drunk out of his mind. He overcame 2 trained police officers who had the advantage on him, injuring one in the process (Brosnan was limping noticeably & having difficulty pursuing). Rolfe had to make a split second decision. He had no way of knowing what Brooks would do. Would he drag someone out of a car & try to escape or enter someone's home & try to hide. Rolfe had to make an immediate, instinctive decision. He eliminated the threat when he was still within close range, before he got away. In situations like that, you instinctively revert to your tactical training. Hesitation can be deadly. It was an "awful but lawful" split second adrenaline fueled decision Rolfe had to make in an instant. Brooks created the situation which cost him his life.

I’m pretty sure training doesn’t include someone without a legally defined lethal weapon to be shot in the back. If so maybe that’s why the chief of police was forced out. Perhaps some phys Ed would be useful too if two guys got manhandled like you suggest but the drunk guy, and he was drunk. If you’re suggesting drunk driving deserves the death penalty, we’ll then say that and let that play out. It’s choosing who’s life is more important that you are doing and as citizens no one should have the power to do that.

At the end of the day there’s all these people far from Atlanta saying this and that but the guy was fired and probably will be convicted so that “awful but lawful” will be proven untrue. And if one wants to argue that the system was rigged well then it applies to been record for every citizen within that same system including the ones some are so fast to proclaim that the guy was an evil gangbanger because he had a record. Either the system is correct or it isn’t but in the community thus happened even most white people are horrified I can say from people at banks and funds to people I know who work at garages.

I'm saying that Brooks was an immediate threat to innocent lives already, just by getting there in that condition.
There was only one safe outcome -- his immediate incarceration, with adjudication initiated before he had the opportunity to get behind the wheel again. His car was his lethal weapon.
It was a death penalty only because he resisted a lawful arrest & assaulted 2 cops correctly doing their job.
4 Atlanta cops were just fired & 2 charged for using their non-lethal tasers, but it's no big deal if an out of control drunk takes one & turns it on the police.

And you don’t see any difference in one given the authority to do so but expected to be held to a very high standard and a regular citizen?

He wasn’t an immediate danger by getting there. The danger had passed. Literally not the case. 45 minutes of calm discussion as well. So again literally not an immediate danger. Doesn’t absolve his behavior, don’t get stupid and go down that path please, I’m explicitly saying that he deserved to be held accountable. But taking his life and shooting where you risk hitting a innocence bystander (again it can be heard w people saying “to, there’s kids around here when they are shooting”) is in no way commensurate with the violation. It is really that simple. Now the shooter has got to go and his pension should go to the family of the victim. Or my share back in my pocket in a refund.

I don’t see only one outcome, seems like you are using a very narrow view of how to manage this situation. Not very thoughtful or creative to say “only one safe outcome”. You certainly can never prove that is true, it’s impossible and it’s not trying to work very hard to have a better overall outcome. Sounds like applying war like military view to domestic life to me.

The danger had not passed. As soon as he was released he could go home & get behind the wheel of the black Volvo. You think not having his license would stop him ? Rolfe fired while he was still at close range, reducing the risk of an errant shot.

absolutely shoot him in the back.
You've sunk to new lows salty. Weird.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The first cop was a decent guy. The cop that shot him was just the type you run across. Already a bad disposition when he arrived. He needed a new job. So the guy tussles with the cops so they can shoot him? Like I said, I know two high school lacrosse players that punched cops and nothing much happened to them. Wrestled to the ground. No weapons drawn. Of course both had been drinking.

Nice job Dad, living up to your screen name. Did you coach those 2 lax bro knuckleheads too ?
No big deal, of course they'd been drinking. That makes it ok. Sad.

Did your 2 drunken lax bro proteges throw off 2 cops, punch them, take their weapon & flee.
...& the problem was the cop's attitude ?
I can't believe how casual you all are about Brooks drunk driving. No prob. Call him a cab. He won't do it again.

Rolfe patiently & professionally questioned & tested Brooks. He did not escalate a very difficult, potentially dangerous situation. He gave Brooks every opportunity. Brooks just keep digging his hole deeper. Brooks was a risk who needed to be arrested, removed from the road & his driving privileges revoked before he killed someone on the road, maybe his daughters.

You think Brooks posed no immediate risk ? He was drunk out of his mind. He overcame 2 trained police officers who had the advantage on him, injuring one in the process (Brosnan was limping noticeably & having difficulty pursuing). Rolfe had to make a split second decision. He had no way of knowing what Brooks would do. Would he drag someone out of a car & try to escape or enter someone's home & try to hide. Rolfe had to make an immediate, instinctive decision. He eliminated the threat when he was still within close range, before he got away. In situations like that, you instinctively revert to your tactical training. Hesitation can be deadly. It was an "awful but lawful" split second adrenaline fueled decision Rolfe had to make in an instant. Brooks created the situation which cost him his life.

I’m pretty sure training doesn’t include someone without a legally defined lethal weapon to be shot in the back. If so maybe that’s why the chief of police was forced out. Perhaps some phys Ed would be useful too if two guys got manhandled like you suggest but the drunk guy, and he was drunk. If you’re suggesting drunk driving deserves the death penalty, we’ll then say that and let that play out. It’s choosing who’s life is more important that you are doing and as citizens no one should have the power to do that.

At the end of the day there’s all these people far from Atlanta saying this and that but the guy was fired and probably will be convicted so that “awful but lawful” will be proven untrue. And if one wants to argue that the system was rigged well then it applies to been record for every citizen within that same system including the ones some are so fast to proclaim that the guy was an evil gangbanger because he had a record. Either the system is correct or it isn’t but in the community thus happened even most white people are horrified I can say from people at banks and funds to people I know who work at garages.

I'm saying that Brooks was an immediate threat to innocent lives already, just by getting there in that condition.
There was only one safe outcome -- his immediate incarceration, with adjudication initiated before he had the opportunity to get behind the wheel again. His car was his lethal weapon.
It was a death penalty only because he resisted a lawful arrest & assaulted 2 cops correctly doing their job.
4 Atlanta cops were just fired & 2 charged for using their non-lethal tasers, but it's no big deal if an out of control drunk takes one & turns it on the police.

And you don’t see any difference in one given the authority to do so but expected to be held to a very high standard and a regular citizen?

He wasn’t an immediate danger by getting there. The danger had passed. Literally not the case. 45 minutes of calm discussion as well. So again literally not an immediate danger. Doesn’t absolve his behavior, don’t get stupid and go down that path please, I’m explicitly saying that he deserved to be held accountable. But taking his life and shooting where you risk hitting a innocence bystander (again it can be heard w people saying “to, there’s kids around here when they are shooting”) is in no way commensurate with the violation. It is really that simple. Now the shooter has got to go and his pension should go to the family of the victim. Or my share back in my pocket in a refund.

I don’t see only one outcome, seems like you are using a very narrow view of how to manage this situation. Not very thoughtful or creative to say “only one safe outcome”. You certainly can never prove that is true, it’s impossible and it’s not trying to work very hard to have a better overall outcome. Sounds like applying war like military view to domestic life to me.

The danger had not passed. As soon as he was released he could go home & get behind the wheel of the black Volvo. You think not having his license would stop him ? Rolfe fired while he was still at close range, reducing the risk of an errant shot.

absolutely shoot him in the back.
You've sunk to new lows salty. Weird.

It’s not new. His mask slipped a long time ago.

[MDlaxfan76]

The first cop was a decent guy. The cop that shot him was just the type you run across. Already a bad disposition when he arrived. He needed a new job. So the guy tussles with the cops so they can shoot him? Like I said, I know two high school lacrosse players that punched cops and nothing much happened to them. Wrestled to the ground. No weapons drawn. Of course both had been drinking.

Nice job Dad, living up to your screen name. Did you coach those 2 lax bro knuckleheads too ?
No big deal, of course they'd been drinking. That makes it ok. Sad.

Did your 2 drunken lax bro proteges throw off 2 cops, punch them, take their weapon & flee.
...& the problem was the cop's attitude ?
I can't believe how casual you all are about Brooks drunk driving. No prob. Call him a cab. He won't do it again.

Rolfe patiently & professionally questioned & tested Brooks. He did not escalate a very difficult, potentially dangerous situation. He gave Brooks every opportunity. Brooks just keep digging his hole deeper. Brooks was a risk who needed to be arrested, removed from the road & his driving privileges revoked before he killed someone on the road, maybe his daughters.

You think Brooks posed no immediate risk ? He was drunk out of his mind. He overcame 2 trained police officers who had the advantage on him, injuring one in the process (Brosnan was limping noticeably & having difficulty pursuing). Rolfe had to make a split second decision. He had no way of knowing what Brooks would do. Would he drag someone out of a car & try to escape or enter someone's home & try to hide. Rolfe had to make an immediate, instinctive decision. He eliminated the threat when he was still within close range, before he got away. In situations like that, you instinctively revert to your tactical training. Hesitation can be deadly. It was an "awful but lawful" split second adrenaline fueled decision Rolfe had to make in an instant. Brooks created the situation which cost him his life.

I’m pretty sure training doesn’t include someone without a legally defined lethal weapon to be shot in the back. If so maybe that’s why the chief of police was forced out. Perhaps some phys Ed would be useful too if two guys got manhandled like you suggest but the drunk guy, and he was drunk. If you’re suggesting drunk driving deserves the death penalty, we’ll then say that and let that play out. It’s choosing who’s life is more important that you are doing and as citizens no one should have the power to do that.

At the end of the day there’s all these people far from Atlanta saying this and that but the guy was fired and probably will be convicted so that “awful but lawful” will be proven untrue. And if one wants to argue that the system was rigged well then it applies to been record for every citizen within that same system including the ones some are so fast to proclaim that the guy was an evil gangbanger because he had a record. Either the system is correct or it isn’t but in the community thus happened even most white people are horrified I can say from people at banks and funds to people I know who work at garages.

I'm saying that Brooks was an immediate threat to innocent lives already, just by getting there in that condition.
There was only one safe outcome -- his immediate incarceration, with adjudication initiated before he had the opportunity to get behind the wheel again. His car was his lethal weapon.
It was a death penalty only because he resisted a lawful arrest & assaulted 2 cops correctly doing their job.
4 Atlanta cops were just fired & 2 charged for using their non-lethal tasers, but it's no big deal if an out of control drunk takes one & turns it on the police.

And you don’t see any difference in one given the authority to do so but expected to be held to a very high standard and a regular citizen?

He wasn’t an immediate danger by getting there. The danger had passed. Literally not the case. 45 minutes of calm discussion as well. So again literally not an immediate danger. Doesn’t absolve his behavior, don’t get stupid and go down that path please, I’m explicitly saying that he deserved to be held accountable. But taking his life and shooting where you risk hitting a innocence bystander (again it can be heard w people saying “to, there’s kids around here when they are shooting”) is in no way commensurate with the violation. It is really that simple. Now the shooter has got to go and his pension should go to the family of the victim. Or my share back in my pocket in a refund.

I don’t see only one outcome, seems like you are using a very narrow view of how to manage this situation. Not very thoughtful or creative to say “only one safe outcome”. You certainly can never prove that is true, it’s impossible and it’s not trying to work very hard to have a better overall outcome. Sounds like applying war like military view to domestic life to me.

The danger had not passed. As soon as he was released he could go home & get behind the wheel of the black Volvo. You think not having his license would stop him ? Rolfe fired while he was still at close range, reducing the risk of an errant shot.

absolutely shoot him in the back.
You've sunk to new lows salty. Weird.

It’s not new. His mask slipped a long time ago.

yeah, but this is a new low.

[Typical Lax Dad]