Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[njbill]

Given the prejudicial statements of the Mayor & the public unrest, they should get a change of venue.

Certainly worth a shot.

In the Cosby case, rather than change the venue, the judge brought in a jury from another county. But he decided that the demographic makeup in the other county had to be as close to that in the county (Montgomery) in which the crime occurred.

In the end, it didn’t work out so well for ol’ Bill.

[a fan]

If you think he might freak out & resist when you tell him he's under arrest, you handcuff him first, tell him he's under arrest & inform him of his rights.

Given the prejudicial statements of the Mayor & the public unrest, they should get a change of venue.

Reason #934 that our country needs to fix this problem. This particular shooting is a mess because of the taser that was taken. But Juries in 2020 aren't going to view a police shooting the way they did 20 or 30 years ago.

And that's not good for anyone involved. Throwing police in prison isn't going to fix this issue for anyone involved, imho.

IMHO, police need to be trained in these situations to simply let the man go.....and arrest later.

Again, this is where Trump can come in and look like a hero. Federal funding for police training...I saw some graphics on what's required to be a policeman in USA vs. other countries. It did not look favorable to the US training. And in other countries, like 99% of the people they approach aren't carrying a gun.....so isn't MORE training warranted in the US?

And think of what would have happened in this situation if a trained social worker and an armed policeman arrived on scene? Better outcome? Maybe. Something to consider.

[old salt]

If you think he might freak out & resist when you tell him he's under arrest, you handcuff him first, tell him he's under arrest & inform him of his rights.

Given the prejudicial statements of the Mayor & the public unrest, they should get a change of venue.

Reason #934 that our country needs to fix this problem. This particular shooting is a mess because of the taser that was taken. But Juries in 2020 aren't going to view a police shooting the way they did 20 or 30 years ago.

And that's not good for anyone involved. Throwing police in prison isn't going to fix this issue for anyone involved, imho.

IMHO, police need to be trained in these situations to simply let the man go.....and arrest later.

Again, this is where Trump can come in and look like a hero. Federal funding for police training...I saw some graphics on what's required to be a policeman in USA vs. other countries. It did not look favorable to the US training. And in other countries, like 99% of the people they approach aren't carrying a gun.....so isn't MORE training warranted in the US?

And think of what would have happened in this situation if a trained social worker and an armed policeman arrived on scene? Better outcome? Maybe. Something to consider.

We don't know how much latitude the cops had. An incident was reported & responded to. Brosnan called for a DUI officer. At that point, they had to follow through with their procedures. The days of giving someone a break for DUI are over, at least at the cop's level. Just before they tried to cuff Brooks, listen to what he said -- he expected Mr Rolfe to just let him go home. It would have been negligence to let him go. Based on his actions, he wasn't even competent to walk home in traffic. ...& MSNBC is so clueless, they keep referring to Brosnan as Rolfe's partner. They were not partners. They patrolled alone & arrived separately. Rolfe was dispatched because he was qualified to made DUI arrests.

Let him go & arrest him later. He was on probation ? Do you show up at his residence with a swat team during the birthday party ? Is the social worker the first one through the door. How fast is Brooks on a bus back to Toledo ?

[CU77]

this is where Trump can come in and look like a hero.

Oh yeah! That's gonna happen!

And in other countries, like 99% of the people they approach aren't carrying a gun

Yeah, this a big and often unmentioned side effect of our "everybody gets a gun!" fetish. Police have to assume the people they confront might whip one out. "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" is the mantra.

Well except Rayshard of course. He'd already been searched.

[6x6]

Not sure what type of law you practice but you might want to brush up. He wasn’t under arrest? C’mon man! Surely you remember probable cause. He was not free to leave. They have no obligation to tell him he was under arrest. Just amazing to me you think he didn’t resist arrest.

Not criminal so you have me there.

In his comments today, the DA mentioned that the cops had not told him he was under arrest. Sounds like it might have been significant to a resisting arrest charge. Sounds like in all of the time the cops had been talking to him they never said anything about arresting him. At least on the video I have seen, they don’t tell Brooks what he blew.

It also sounds like Brooks kept trying to talk them into letting him go. Maybe he thought they ultimately were going to do that.

I think an element of resisting arrest is that the defendant has to know he is under arrest. I suspect that is why the cops usually expressly say that. Yes, I think you can prove that through other evidence, but it is certainly easier if you have expressly said the words.

Assuming his BAC was over the limit, then, yes, they had probable cause to arrest him.

In terms of whether he was free to leave, at least on the video I have seen, I don’t see Brooks either asking that or the cops telling him he isn’t free to go.

What I’m saying is that if they didn’t tell him he was under arrest, I think any resisting arrest charge might’ve been more difficult to prove. Moot, of course, since the cop killed him.

Well DA’s are politicians, they say a lot of things. Could he be grandstanding to further influence people’s opinions about the case to be tried? https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resourc ... ing-arrest

In my experience and understanding, at the least, the reasonable man rule would come in to play. I believe the time had passed to claim it was just a detention rather than an arrest. Regardless, as he had a criminal record, been arrested and placed in handcuffs before, he knew he was under arrest as soon as he was told to put hands behind his back and the cuffs were going on.

[a fan]

We don't know how much latitude the cops had.

I'm discussing these events moving forward-----I have no clue...none of us do.....what took place that night soup to nuts.

Just before they tried to cuff Brooks, listen to what he said -- he expected Mr Rolfe to just let him go home. It would have been negligence to let him go.

By way of comparison to what actually happened? Couldn't disagree more. Negligence was shooting him in the back. They were standing next to his car...what was he going to do that was likely to be worse than a man dying and a police officer getting arrested for murder?

That's a REALLY bad outcome, don't you think? You have to be a Hollywood screenwriter to come up with an outcome worse than that if they had simply let him go.

Let him go & arrest him later. He was on probation ? Do you show up at his residence with a swat team during the birthday party ? Is the social worker the first one through the door. How fast is Brooks on a bus back to Toledo ?

Who cares? is my answer, and I'm not being a smart *ss here.

You're asking me to weigh outcomes here.

1. A man is shot in the back, and is killed. And a police officer is up on murder charges.

or, 2. A guy walks home on a suspected DUI, with the police impounding the man's car.

Are you seriously not able to tell which outcome is an across the board better outcome, and which one sucks the big one?

[old salt]

We don't know how much latitude the cops had.

I'm discussing these events moving forward-----I have no clue...none of us do.....what took place that night soup to nuts.

Just before they tried to cuff Brooks, listen to what he said -- he expected Mr Rolfe to just let him go home. It would have been negligence to let him go.

By way of comparison to what actually happened? Couldn't disagree more. Negligence was shooting him in the back. They were standing next to his car...what was he going to do that was likely to be worse than a man dying and a police officer getting arrested for murder?

That's a REALLY bad outcome, don't you think? You have to be a Hollywood screenwriter to come up with an outcome worse than that if they had simply let him go.
.. ...when they tried to place him under arrest, they did not expect to have to shoot him. If they had expected him to resist, they would have called for more officers.

Let him go & arrest him later. He was on probation ? Do you show up at his residence with a swat team during the birthday party ? Is the social worker the first one through the door. How fast is Brooks on a bus back to Toledo ?

Who cares? is my answer, and I'm not being a smart *ss here.

You're asking me to weigh outcomes here.

1. A man is shot in the back, and is killed. And a police officer is up on murder charges.
It was not inevitable, or even expected behavior that he would resist, assault & flee. Do you need to call in SWAT for every arrest, or just let everyone go ?

or, 2. A guy walks home on a suspected DUI, with the police impounding the man's car.
Why should he be allowed to walk home rather than be arrested ? He appeared to not even know where he was. Why was he a special case ? It wasn't his car -- it was a rental. Then you have to track him down again & arrest him anyway, if he doesn't flee the jurisdiction first. Didn't he tell Brosnan that he was visiting from Ohio to visit his mothers grave. Did he have a OH or GA license ? Where is his parole officer ? Then the story changed to the birthday party. Brosnan gave him the chance to call his sister but he was either too drunk to do it, or she wouldn't answer, or it was just BS.

Are you seriously not able to tell which outcome is an across the board better outcome, and which one sucks the big one?
Do you realize what a ridiculous strawman you're setting up ? What % of DUI arrests devolve into resisting arrest & an assault on a police officer ? In the body cam discussion between Rolfe & Brosnan there was no indication they knew that he was a violent felon out on parole. Are you saying they should have anticipated all that because he's a black man ?

[a fan]

Why should he be allowed to walk home rather than be arrested ?

There it is. This is the mindset that the police officer had....and this is the systemic mindset that needs to change. This mindset isn't working....and it's just one of the reasons that police keep shooting people that are unarmed, or simply evading.

You want the police to register justice on that spot, by any means necessary. In other words----you think that if he is let go, the result is unjust. And yet what happened as a result of this idea that this man "can't" be let go?

A policeman drew his gun on someone running away from him.

And I'm not setting up a strawman. I'm telling you that that policeman made a decision that it was better to shoot a man, then to simply let him go.

I have no clue if race had anything to do with the policeman's mindset. I'm not commenting on that.

As I said before-----remember when the community of Los Angeles figured out that high speed car chases were stupid, and were doing more harm than good? So what did they do? They changed their policy.

Now there's a 56 page policy for the police on what to do and why.

This is what these communities need......more clarity and better standards that keep these overstressed police officers from drawing their guns in the first place. Simple stuff like evaluating whether running down a dark alley chasing someone who might be armed over some nothingburger incident. Just let them go. And this is about protecting the citizens, the police themselves, the career of the policemen, and the community as a whole. And yes, the potential felons, too. They need protecting, too, and sometimes I think we forget that. Innocent until proven guilty.

https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs ... ursuit.pdf

[get it to x]

Why should he be allowed to walk home rather than be arrested ?

There it is. This is the mindset that the police officer had....and this is the systemic mindset that needs to change. This mindset isn't working....and it's just one of the reasons that police keep shooting people that are unarmed, or simply evading.

You want the police to register justice on that spot, by any means necessary. In other words----you think that if he is let go, the result is unjust. And yet what happened as a result of this idea that this man "can't" be let go?

A policeman drew his gun on someone running away from him.

And I'm not setting up a strawman. I'm telling you that that policeman made a decision that it was better to shoot a man, then to simply let him go.

I have no clue if race had anything to do with the policeman's mindset. I'm not commenting on that.

As I said before-----remember when the community of Los Angeles figured out that high speed car chases were stupid, and were doing more harm than good? So what did they do? They changed their policy.

Now there's a 56 page policy for the police on what to do and why.

This is what these communities need......more clarity and better standards that keep these overstressed police officers from drawing their guns in the first place. Simple stuff like evaluating whether running down a dark alley chasing someone who might be armed over some nothingburger incident. Just let them go. And this is about protecting the citizens, the police themselves, the career of the policemen, and the community as a whole. And yes, the potential felons, too. They need protecting, too, and sometimes I think we forget that. Innocent until proven guilty.

https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs ... ursuit.pdf

As far as letting him go, they have little leeway because of groups like MADD, who want zero tolerance for DUI and have influence in the state capitals.

[CU88]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

[jhu72]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

[cradleandshoot]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

https://www.foxnews.com/us/officers-kil ... -duty-2019

Just like all these cops were executioners. Some were executed, some died in the line of duty. The pendulum swings in both directions. I wonder why so many cops are becoming more paranoid everyday?

[CU88]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

https://www.foxnews.com/us/officers-kil ... -duty-2019

Just like all these cops were executioners. Some were executed, some died in the line of duty. The pendulum swings in both directions. I wonder why so many cops are becoming more paranoid everyday?

Do you believe that police have the Right and Training to act as Judge, Jury & Executioner?

[get it to x]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

How many is some? The vagueness of your post does little to bolster your argument. And of those that want to be executioner, how many only want to kill people of color? How many unjustified killings of black people were there? Without adjudicating Rayshard Brooks death, George Floyd is certainly the most recent example. If this were an epidemic, why haven't we seen massive unrest on a continual basis? Of the 9 unarmed black people killed in 2019 in police interactions about half involved physical confrontations and attempts to take an officers weapon and become an armed person.

Sure, we need better hiring and training practices, but let's not ignore what creates too many interactions. Remember, most of these interactions occur in cities with Democrats in control of the Mayor's Office, District Attorney and Chief of Police. I don't believe they are racists. They are just focusing on the wrong things and many times painting others as villains to deflect from their own failures. People of all colors, including whites, are more likely to live in poverty and have police interactions when there is no father present in the house, more so in urban settings where there is a presence of police in closer proximity to the population.

And yet what group want's to eliminate the "nuclear family" from the black community? I will give you three guesses but the first two don't count. This is from a tab on a website titled "What we believe":

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Where does the word "father" appear?

[CU88]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

How many is some? The vagueness of your post does little to bolster your argument. And of those that want to be executioner, how many only want to kill people of color? How many unjustified killings of black people were there? Without adjudicating Rayshard Brooks death, George Floyd is certainly the most recent example. If this were an epidemic, why haven't we seen massive unrest on a continual basis? Of the 9 unarmed black people killed in 2019 in police interactions about half involved physical confrontations and attempts to take an officers weapon and become an armed person.

Sure, we need better hiring and training practices, but let's not ignore what creates too many interactions. Remember, most of these interactions occur in cities with Democrats in control of the Mayor's Office, District Attorney and Chief of Police. I don't believe they are racists. They are just focusing on the wrong things and many times painting others as villains to deflect from their own failures. People of all colors, including whites, are more likely to live in poverty and have police interactions when there is no father present in the house, more so in urban settings where there is a presence of police in closer proximity to the population.

And yet what group want's to eliminate the "nuclear family" from the black community? I will give you three guesses but the first two don't count. This is from a tab on a website titled "What we believe":

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Where does the word "father" appear?

Things that we can control, as you mention in your post.

1. Remove weapons from police.
2. Better screening of candidates during hiring process.
3. Better training practices of police.

Why not start here?

[6x6]

this is where Trump can come in and look like a hero.

Oh yeah! That's gonna happen!

And in other countries, like 99% of the people they approach aren't carrying a gun

Yeah, this a big and often unmentioned side effect of our "everybody gets a gun!" fetish. Police have to assume the people they confront might whip one out. "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" is the mantra.

Well except Rayshard of course. He'd already been searched.

Correct he did not have a gun. However, he had not been searched, just a pat down and not even a good pat down from what I saw.

[get it to x]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

How many is some? The vagueness of your post does little to bolster your argument. And of those that want to be executioner, how many only want to kill people of color? How many unjustified killings of black people were there? Without adjudicating Rayshard Brooks death, George Floyd is certainly the most recent example. If this were an epidemic, why haven't we seen massive unrest on a continual basis? Of the 9 unarmed black people killed in 2019 in police interactions about half involved physical confrontations and attempts to take an officers weapon and become an armed person.

Sure, we need better hiring and training practices, but let's not ignore what creates too many interactions. Remember, most of these interactions occur in cities with Democrats in control of the Mayor's Office, District Attorney and Chief of Police. I don't believe they are racists. They are just focusing on the wrong things and many times painting others as villains to deflect from their own failures. People of all colors, including whites, are more likely to live in poverty and have police interactions when there is no father present in the house, more so in urban settings where there is a presence of police in closer proximity to the population.

And yet what group want's to eliminate the "nuclear family" from the black community? I will give you three guesses but the first two don't count. This is from a tab on a website titled "What we believe":

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Where does the word "father" appear?

Things that we can control, as you mention in your post.

1. Remove weapons from police.
2. Better screening of candidates during hiring process.
3. Better training practices of police.

Why not start here?

A good idea in there, except disarming police. But can we do more then one thing at a time? How about we educate black youth, especially women, on what the future possibly holds for them and their children as single mom's? How about we stop subsidizing destructive behavior. For a party that claims Republicans are the "anti science" party Dems sure seem to promote behavior that statistics show is counterproductive to the people they claim to champion.

You didn't answer my riddle. What group opposes the "nuclear family".

[CU88]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

How many is some? The vagueness of your post does little to bolster your argument. And of those that want to be executioner, how many only want to kill people of color? How many unjustified killings of black people were there? Without adjudicating Rayshard Brooks death, George Floyd is certainly the most recent example. If this were an epidemic, why haven't we seen massive unrest on a continual basis? Of the 9 unarmed black people killed in 2019 in police interactions about half involved physical confrontations and attempts to take an officers weapon and become an armed person.

Sure, we need better hiring and training practices, but let's not ignore what creates too many interactions. Remember, most of these interactions occur in cities with Democrats in control of the Mayor's Office, District Attorney and Chief of Police. I don't believe they are racists. They are just focusing on the wrong things and many times painting others as villains to deflect from their own failures. People of all colors, including whites, are more likely to live in poverty and have police interactions when there is no father present in the house, more so in urban settings where there is a presence of police in closer proximity to the population.

And yet what group want's to eliminate the "nuclear family" from the black community? I will give you three guesses but the first two don't count. This is from a tab on a website titled "What we believe":

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Where does the word "father" appear?

Things that we can control, as you mention in your post.

1. Remove weapons from police.
2. Better screening of candidates during hiring process.
3. Better training practices of police.

Why not start here?

A good idea, but can we do more then one thing at a time? How about we educate black youth, especially women, on what the future possibly holds for them and their children as single mom's? How about we stop subsidizing destructive behavior. For a party that claims Republicans are the "anti science" party Dems sure seem to promote behavior that statistics show is counterproductive to the people they claim to champion.

You didn't answer my riddle. What group opposes the "nuclear family".

The longest journey starts with one simple step.
I am looking for meaningful results and an efficient use of tax payer dollars. Don't you think that is a good start?

[Typical Lax Dad]

this is where Trump can come in and look like a hero.

Oh yeah! That's gonna happen!

And in other countries, like 99% of the people they approach aren't carrying a gun

Yeah, this a big and often unmentioned side effect of our "everybody gets a gun!" fetish. Police have to assume the people they confront might whip one out. "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" is the mantra.

Well except Rayshard of course. He'd already been searched.

Correct he did not have a gun. However, he had not been searched, just a pat down and not even a good pat down from what I saw.

So more proof they were poorly trained? Can’t even pat a guy down right but it’s a good shoot....

[Peter Brown]

Are posters here telling us that cops have both the Right and Training to be both Judge AND Executioner?

… some clearly like it that way, certainly when it comes to people of color

How many is some? The vagueness of your post does little to bolster your argument. And of those that want to be executioner, how many only want to kill people of color? How many unjustified killings of black people were there? Without adjudicating Rayshard Brooks death, George Floyd is certainly the most recent example. If this were an epidemic, why haven't we seen massive unrest on a continual basis? Of the 9 unarmed black people killed in 2019 in police interactions about half involved physical confrontations and attempts to take an officers weapon and become an armed person.

Sure, we need better hiring and training practices, but let's not ignore what creates too many interactions. Remember, most of these interactions occur in cities with Democrats in control of the Mayor's Office, District Attorney and Chief of Police. I don't believe they are racists. They are just focusing on the wrong things and many times painting others as villains to deflect from their own failures. People of all colors, including whites, are more likely to live in poverty and have police interactions when there is no father present in the house, more so in urban settings where there is a presence of police in closer proximity to the population.

And yet what group want's to eliminate the "nuclear family" from the black community? I will give you three guesses but the first two don't count. This is from a tab on a website titled "What we believe":

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Where does the word "father" appear?

Things that we can control, as you mention in your post.

1. Remove weapons from police.
2. Better screening of candidates during hiring process.
3. Better training practices of police.

Why not start here?

A good idea, but can we do more then one thing at a time? How about we educate black youth, especially women, on what the future possibly holds for them and their children as single mom's? How about we stop subsidizing destructive behavior. For a party that claims Republicans are the "anti science" party Dems sure seem to promote behavior that statistics show is counterproductive to the people they claim to champion.

You didn't answer my riddle. What group opposes the "nuclear family".

The longest journey starts with one simple step.
I am looking for meaningful results and an efficient use of tax payer dollars. Don't you think that is a good start?

Let me help, get to it x, since CU88 would prefer to keep up the idiotic lefty drumbeat of disarming police (which would go over great - not- in most Democratic cities where nearly every criminal possesses illegal guns).

Black Lives Matter is against the nuclear family.

By the way, so is the entirety of the Democratic Party if you aren't paying attention.