Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Atlanta DA is totally incompetent AND a criminal himself. Both cops will walk and Atlanta will be gone with the wind.,AGAIN!
If Atlanta burns again because these cops get a not guilty verdict, which they should get based upon what I saw in the video, frankly, I won't give a damn.
Atlanta will see the second coming of General Sherman if he gets off. I actually think he can beat felony murder with the right jury but that is a really big if because the burning of Atlanta will be on the minds of those jurors.
I've got exhibit "A" for the defense. I mentioned it before but leave it to Fox news to come up with the demonstrable evidence that the DA doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground or just outright lied to get a conviction. A couple of weeks ago, the DA gave a news conference on another case and says for the world to see and hear, that a Taser under Georgia law, is a lethal weapon. Now in the Brooks case he is arguing the exact opposite. It's a good day when the DA provides the reasonable doubt you need to get your client off.
.... not "lethal weapon" ... there is a serious distinction.
If someone on Fox News said "a lethal weapon" ... that's not what the DA said.
Here's what I posted in the other thread:
Pointing a deadly weapon at an officer gets a JUSTIFIABLE deadly response! Pulling the trigger shows the INTENT TO SHOOT THE COP!
It was pointed out that THIS DA just a few weeks ago called a Tazer a "deadly weapon"! If he tries the case, the Judge should allow that statement into evidence particularly if that stupid Racist asshole decides to try the case.
Perhaps the DA needs to get shot with a Tazer once or twice. Before he reads some law:
With respect to Tazers .... people have died from being shot with a Tazer ... just like with pepper spray.
The distinction is important because of the burden of proof ...
... an item can be proven to be a "deadly weapon" by virtue of it's use where as a firearm is considered inherently a "deadly weapon" but a Tazer is not a "firearm" per se. There have been plenty of instances in which a person shot with a Tazer died, but the cause of death was from the serious bodily injury caused by the Tazer that aggravated a pre-existing condition e.g. frail heart from "heart disease" being stopped by the fright or jolt from being struck.
The same can be said for pepper spray.
At the moment of the decision making to discharge the officer almost always has no clue about any life-threatening pre-existing condition...and depending on the reason for discharging it might not matter anyway if they did ... "heart disease" is not a defense or excuse to assault (or even disobey an officer's command to turn around for cuffing the suspect) an officer.
Item #2 above in the quoted Georgia law provides the classic Model Penal Code definition of a "deadly weapon" ... and the case I cited explains why Georgia has no definition in the statute.
A "sock" has been determined to be "deadly weapon" in Texas based on its manner of use: stuffing it down a young lady's throat before she was sexually assaulted and left to die from suffocation from the sock stuck in her throat while "hog tied" and unable to remove it.
I'm convinced if I have a weapon in my holster, and a legal reason to be carrying that weapon in that place, that if a motherfucker attempts to taze me then I can use the minimum force necessary to stop him from tazing me which in this case I believe a "reasonable person" would judge to be shooting the SOB.
FF- as i understand the language used to present such a matter to police and Da lawyers after the fact - it is not recommended to ever use the word "kill"- particularly with any intent - regardless of reason.
"Stop a threat to You, Your person, other persons at risk, and property under certain stipulations".
Very likely if your person is assaulted by a person with a Tazer (in Texas) - the use of deadly force to protect yourself from a "threat" and to "Stop the Threat" would be reasonable under the law. In Texas
Advice from a qualified attorney before speaking to police is a good idea if U are ever involved in the use of deadly force to stop a threat to your person.
No -I*m not a Lawyer. Neither is 9500 or Little "a" - but their egos simulate being attorneys!
you likely know this anyway - not trying to patronize You.
It's hard to tell. You see, when you are a Black DA, up for re-election and you are under investigation yourself, being thought of as stupid is the least of your concerns. Your biggest concern is getting re-elected and if you have to look stupid to accomplish that, so be it. Could he possibly get re-elected if he were to stand up there and say "I will not be recommending the charge of felony murder because the officer indeed, according to what can be clearly seen on the video, was in fear for his safety from the deadly weapon the fleeing felon had just discharged at his head which if it had hit the office in the face would almost certainly have killed him".
That's what an honorable DA would have said but that wouldn't get him re-elected in Atlanta. As a matter of fact, it might have gotten him hung from a tree if he had and the guilty party if caught would not be charged.
Or, he actually could be that stupid. That was obvious to anybody with a brain who watched his news conference. He was the epitome of incompetence.
It will be remarkable if the GBI finishes their report and does not recommend a charge of felony murder. Get those matches ready Atlanta.
I'm convinced if I have a weapon in my holster, and a legal reason to be carrying that weapon in that place, that if a motherfucker attempts to taze me then I can use the minimum force necessary to stop him from tazing me which in this case I believe a "reasonable person" would judge to be shooting the SOB.
And a number of cases were mentioned this evening of officers using deadly force against a suspect with a Taser aimed at them and they did not face charges. This DA can't possibly make the case that the Taser fired at the cop was not a deadly weapon. What he will try to do is convince a jury that the cop fired after the discharge and "should have known" that the Taser was no longer a deadly weapon and he just might succeed which would be IMHO a travesty of justice.
Now we know why Brooks wasn't about to let the cop put him in cuffs and charge him with DUI, he was on parole and wasn't going back to prison he must have thought but if he had not been shot and killed, he must certainly would be going back to prison for resisting arrest and battery on a police officer. So anyway you cut it, it was a bad choice for Mr. Brooks. He chose death over jail.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for four crimes - including cruelty to children - and faced going back to prison if charged with a DUI, when he was found asleep and intoxicated at Wendy's drive-thru
He was convicted on four counts – False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children
Now we know why Brooks wasn't about to let the cop put him in cuffs and charge him with DUI, he was on parole and wasn't going back to prison he must have thought but if he had not been shot and killed, he must certainly would be going back to prison for resisting arrest and battery on a police officer. So anyway you cut it, it was a bad choice for Mr. Brooks. He chose death over jail.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for four crimes - including cruelty to children - and faced going back to prison if charged with a DUI, when he was found asleep and intoxicated at Wendy's drive-thru
He was convicted on four counts – False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children
this is the full video of the encounter. the interaction is far longer than i thought, much longer than just the clip the media is playing. several times Brooks exits his car after being told to remain in the car.
one officer tells another officer that when Brooks moved the car as instructed he ran over the curb and had to back up. clearly this guy is unable to drive, doesn't even know where he is. had he just been "tired" the officers might have let him leave.
there is a lengthy field sobriety test due to this guy Brooks not being able to even understand simple instructions. these officers give Brooks every chance to demonstrate he can drive. Brooks didn't even know where he was.
This is a civil case, but as far as I am aware still good law by SCOTUS.
Quote:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
"Probable Cause":
Passed out in drive-thru behind wheel
Violent Offender on Probation
Intoxicated
Not in a vehicle registered to him
Attacked two officers
Took one of their weapons
Ran from them
Turned and shot one with a deadly weapon
The officer had PC that he could/would harm another person if he escaped.
BTW: Fox had a video of the DA stating that a Tazer is a "deadly weapon" just a couple of weeks ago.
If you want to know where this country is headed with this "politically/culturally" OVERCORRECTION in face of the Black Lives Matter hysteria .... just look at the Atlanta DA ...
I once had the head of a local NAACP chapter in a small White-dominated town tell me that "we" know a lynching when we see one."
Well .... me too! And these Atlanta cops are getting lynched by a MOB and the DA is leading the pack to divert attention away from his own criminal charges and to win an election. It's too bad the DA has IMMUNITY.
And a number of cases were mentioned this evening of officers using deadly force against a suspect with a Taser aimed at them and they did not face charges. This DA can't possibly make the case that the Taser fired at the cop was not a deadly weapon. What he will try to do is convince a jury that the cop fired after the discharge and "should have known" that the Taser was no longer a deadly weapon and he just might succeed which would be IMHO a travesty of justice.
I just found out that Texas law makes it a felony to attempt to take away or take away a Taser from a Texas Peace Officer.
"Only one criminal law in Texas refers specifically to stun guns (defined in a way that applies only to Taser-type devices). It’s felony to take or try to take away a Taser from a police officer or other law enforcement agent. The punishment depends on the type of officer or agent involved. (Tex. Penal Code § 38.14 (2019).)"
Now we know why Brooks wasn't about to let the cop put him in cuffs and charge him with DUI, he was on parole and wasn't going back to prison he must have thought but if he had not been shot and killed, he must certainly would be going back to prison for resisting arrest and battery on a police officer. So anyway you cut it, it was a bad choice for Mr. Brooks. He chose death over jail.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for four crimes - including cruelty to children - and faced going back to prison if charged with a DUI, when he was found asleep and intoxicated at Wendy's drive-thru
He was convicted on four counts – False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children
Funny how the DA never mentioned that, huh?
This lowers his "family man" street cred, for sure.
