Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[MDlaxfan76]

yup, the reason this thread is Racism in America is that we have idiots who actually think BLM is against the "nuclear family".

[tech37]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this with hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brooks resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

[tech37]

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. That's just crazy talk
2. Better screening of candidates during hiring process.
3. Better training practices of police.

Why not start here?

[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, 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.

You will note I edited my post to refute the disarm police idea but CU88 decided to post my original, unedited post.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The good guys holding the city hostage for ransom. Fire them all and replace them with people that want to work.

[get it to x]

yup, the reason this thread is Racism in America is that we have idiots who actually think BLM is against the "nuclear family".

I know you better than this. If by idiots you mean people just making stuff up, I'll give you the direct link to the page and please read the fourth paragraph from the bottom.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

It's like the old joke about the husband caught with his mistress--"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?".

[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.

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

Where did I say that?

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

[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....

Where did I say that?

“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.”

Sounds like an excuse...he wasn’t “really” searched so a threat remained a possibility. I may have read too much into your statement.

[tech37]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

Maybe.

1. Brooks stole and attempted to use a taser

2. Brooks was DUI and could have caused harm if released (IMO, that was the cop's mindset before Brooks assaulted them)

[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

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?

… this old saw. A conservative church lady fantasy narrative (not so sure calling it conservative is fair any longer - I know actual conservatives who understand this if BS). Like no black (or white) kid who runs afoul of the law has a father. And of course this is all the fault of democrats. Have you ever talked to a black man about raising his children (more specifically SONS)? The challenges -- that you as a white man don't face!

The fact that lack of fathers is a problem DOES NOT mean it is the problem. I have personally spoken with enough of a sample of black fathers about raising their sons to feel pretty confident they have a special problem. It is called systematic racism. They know it when they see it, and they see it daily. Sure it is better than it used to be, but it does exist. It is real. Because you don't see (of course you don't - you are white) doesn't mean it does not exist.

To change the subject only a little -- put me in the class of white men who doesn't trust the police. My interactions - by the book - with them show them to have significant problems in interacting with citizens, the people they are supposed to serve and protect. I have been noticing this since the 80s. It is not new, and it is getting worse IMO. I am not talking about the call it 5% bad COPs - it is the entire force. I don't think I am the only white man who has lost trust and respect for these folks over the last 20 - 40 years. It is the system, it is broken, it must and will be fixed. It is more than just retraining - it will require them to see their job differently. A fan, above, puts his finger on how to see it differently. He is absolutely correct in his assessment of the Brooks incident (he is not the first - this discussion has been had many times). They need to stop thinking with their balls and start thinking with their brains. Needless confrontation is stupid and expensive. It is the system.

PS - if you don't think this is wrapped up in the question of gun control - think again.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

Maybe.

1. Brooks stole and attempted to use a taser

2. Brooks was DUI and could have caused harm if released (IMO, that was the cop's mindset before Brooks assaulted them)

A taser is a non lethal weapon and he was out of range. You don’t get to shoot an American Citizen because you are angry.

[Peter Brown]

yup, the reason this thread is Racism in America is that we have idiots who actually think BLM is against the "nuclear family".

I know you better than this. If by idiots you mean people just making stuff up, I'll give you the direct link to the page and please read the fourth paragraph from the bottom.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

It's like the old joke about the husband caught with his mistress--"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?".

Curious if MD has the humility to issue a mea culpa. Vegas says “no way!!”

Most of the left has zero idea who they jump into bed with, as they madly scramble to perform woke art every morning.

[tech37]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

Maybe.

1. Brooks stole and attempted to use a taser

2. Brooks was DUI and could have caused harm if released (IMO, that was the cop's mindset before Brooks assaulted them)

A taser is a non lethal weapon and he was out of range. You don’t get to shoot an American Citizen because you are angry.

A taser can kill, especially if it's used by an untrained person, right? I'm sure the cop knew this. He also knew that, if tased, Brooks could have taken his gun. As far as distance goes, I'm sure a jury will be asked to consider Brook's intent. What if it had been a gun and not a taser?

I understand your biased opinion in this case but it's hardly open and shut as according to you and the DA.

[SCLaxAttack]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

Maybe.

1. Brooks stole and attempted to use a taser

2. Brooks was DUI and could have caused harm if released (IMO, that was the cop's mindset before Brooks assaulted them)

A taser is a non lethal weapon and he was out of range. You don’t get to shoot an American Citizen because you are angry.

I’m not going to address the Brooks being out of range to effectively use the taser because I don’t know that. Spoke to my son, the cop. Given the sudden escalation he wouldn’t have known if Brooks planned to use the taser to then disarm him of his weapon. Given that circumstance he believes the shooting was warranted. Being shot in the back is moot. That could change in a split second. Brooks had a weapon, regardless of its specific lethality, that would enable him to immobilize the cop and take his weapon.

This opinion is provided without having seen any video that would prove distance between Brooks and the cop.

[Peter Brown]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

Maybe.

1. Brooks stole and attempted to use a taser

2. Brooks was DUI and could have caused harm if released (IMO, that was the cop's mindset before Brooks assaulted them)

A taser is a non lethal weapon and he was out of range. You don’t get to shoot an American Citizen because you are angry.

A taser can kill, especially if it's used by an untrained person, right? I'm sure the cop knew this. He also knew that, if tased, Brooks could have taken his gun. As far as distance goes, I'm sure a jury will be asked to consider Brook's intent. What if it had been a gun and not a taser?

I understand your biased opinion in this case but it's hardly open and shut as according to the DA.

The police who shot Tamir Rice were never prosecuted. Tamir had a toy gun not even a taser.

[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?

… this old saw. A conservative church lady fantasy narrative (not so sure calling it conservative is fair any longer - I know actual conservatives who understand this if BS). Like no black (or white) kid who runs afoul of the law has a father. And of course this is all the fault of democrats. Have you ever talked to a black man about raising his children (more specifically SONS)? The challenges -- that you as a white man don't face!

The fact that lack of fathers is a problem DOES NOT mean it is the problem. I have personally spoken with enough of a sample of black fathers about raising their sons to feel pretty confident they have a special problem. It is called systematic racism. They know it when they see it, and they see it daily. Sure it is better than it used to be, but it does exist. It is real. Because you don't see (of course you don't - you are white) doesn't mean it does not exist.

To change the subject only a little -- put me in the class of white men who doesn't trust the police. My interactions - by the book - with them show them to have significant problems in interacting with citizens, the people they are supposed to serve and protect. I have been noticing this since the 80s. It is not new, and it is getting worse IMO. I am not talking about the call it 5% bad COPs - it is the entire force. I don't think I am the only white man who has lost trust and respect for these folks over the last 20 - 40 years. It is the system, it is broken, it must and will be fixed. It is more than just retraining - it will require them to see their job differently. A fan, above, puts his finger on how to see it differently. He is absolutely correct in his assessment of the Brooks incident (he is not the first - this discussion has been had many times). They need to stop thinking with their balls and start thinking with their brains. Needless confrontation is stupid and expensive. It is the system.

PS - if you don't think this is wrapped up in the question of gun control - think again.

There is racism and there will always be racism because there will always be stupid people. Systemic? I don't buy it. The societal penalty for being a real racist is too stiff and only those stupid people can't see it. Racism is a problem of the heart, not the intellect. Groups like skinheads and the KKK are marginalized by society. The only organized racism is your "paternalism" for treating black adults like your children.

Paternalism is the job of fathers!!! So let's do nothing about a problem that could be addressed without much financial investment, just educating all people on how to increase their chances of success. Feminists would likely go nuts about the "Patriarchy", which has only proven to improve lives for many centuries. So let's let a bunch of entitled third wave feminists and uncaring liberals dictate the fate of people they don't know any more than I do.

[Brooklyn]

yup, the reason this thread is Racism in America is that we have idiots who actually think BLM is against the "nuclear family".

I know you better than this. If by idiots you mean people just making stuff up, I'll give you the direct link to the page and please read the fourth paragraph from the bottom.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

It's like the old joke about the husband caught with his mistress--"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?".

We've gone over this before - BLM is not for breaking up the nuclear family. Instead, it seeks to expand it through inclusionism. If you still don't understand that, write them a letter and ask for a personal explanation.

[jhu72]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

Maybe.

1. Brooks stole and attempted to use a taser

2. Brooks was DUI and could have caused harm if released (IMO, that was the cop's mindset before Brooks assaulted them)

A taser is a non lethal weapon and he was out of range. You don’t get to shoot an American Citizen because you are angry.

… some COPS do. You have numerous examples just over the last five years. They also do it out or fear and frustration.

Not to excuse them, but they have very stressful jobs with a modicum of real and a lot of perceived danger

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

I'm certainly not. In this case it seems the police were doing their job "by the book" having apprehended a person with a record, who proved to be DUI. Brooks is the one who escalated/set in motion the entire unfortunate altercation and conclusion. If a jury is convinced that the officer felt his life was threatened/endangered by Brooks, then again, wasn't the cop just doing his job? Isn't that the law?

Considering the politics and the fact Brooks was shot in back, makes acquittal unlikely. But I don't think this is an open and shut case for the prosecution either. Looking at it objectively, stuff doesn't add up especially considering the DA's heavy-handed list of charges.

Seems to me if the cops had just let him go, then they would have been playing "judge," but instead they did their job and arrested him (or attempted to), according to the law. As far as the shooting goes, obviously the cop will be considered "executioner" unless it is shown he acted within the law.

A lot of you guys are really looking at this in hindsight. As OS explained to a fan, the cops never expected Brooks to fight and run, and certainly not with a deadly weapon (taser is considered a "deadly weapon" in GA I believe). He caught them completely off guard with his schizo eruption. You can't somehow equate the cop's mindset before Brook's resisted arrest and after he assaulted them.

Here what the “book” says:


Use of Deadly Force
(CALEA 6th ed. Standard 4.2.1)
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:

1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person

You are wrong.

Maybe.

1. Brooks stole and attempted to use a taser

2. Brooks was DUI and could have caused harm if released (IMO, that was the cop's mindset before Brooks assaulted them)

A taser is a non lethal weapon and he was out of range. You don’t get to shoot an American Citizen because you are angry.

A taser can kill, especially if it's used by an untrained person, right? I'm sure the cop knew this. He also knew that, if tased, Brooks could have taken his gun. As far as distance goes, I'm sure a jury will be asked to consider Brook's intent. What if it had been a gun and not a taser?

I understand your biased opinion in this case but it's hardly open and shut as according to you and the DA.

So it’s considered lethal? That’s your position? What’s my bias?
Who said it’s an open and shut case. He is out of a job because he violated policy. We will see if he gets off. Murder is a high threshold. Not sure what the options are for a lesser charge. The higher the charge, the more likely a non guilty verdict.