I am not familiar with GA law, so please tell me, do any of those 6 carry the death penalty?

I'm sure the prosecutor will get around to bringing those charges as soon as Mr Brooks has warm blood put back in him and gets his heart restarted.

Stop equivocating the original crime with the death penalty. The minute aggravated assault on a police officer comes into play, lethal force is put on the table. They were not shooting this man because he drove drunk.

That is an interesting proposition.
Are you quoting that from a Georgia statute?

Shooting a taser at an officer is quite literally aggravated assault--a forcible felony. 

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she 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; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

---

I am not familiar with GA law, so please tell me, do any of those 6 carry the death penalty?

I'm sure the prosecutor will get around to bringing those charges as soon as Mr Brooks has warm blood put back in him and gets his heart restarted.

That is an interesting proposition.
Are you quoting that from a Georgia statute?

Shooting a taser at an officer is quite literally aggravated assault--a forcible felony. 

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she 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; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I think it's a stretch to conclude that the officer fired in order to prevent the taser from being fired. 
You'd need a brain expert to break down the reaction and processing times in play, and I don't think it will add up.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You'd need a brain expert to explain why you're so bad at this.

---

Shooting a taser at an officer is quite literally aggravated assault--a forcible felony. 

I think it's a stretch to conclude that the officer fired in order to prevent the taser from being fired. 
You'd need a brain expert to break down the reaction and processing times in play, and I don't think it will add up.

That's ridiculous and incorrect.

It's apparent you have no real intent to debate in good faith. I'm confident you only want to be a contrarian. You can disagree with whether or not it should be legal, but it absolutely is by-the-book legal. The officer reacted and shot in just over a second. Google says it usually takes .25 - .3 seconds to react. That leaves just about .75 seconds for the officer to fall into the vehicle, remove his weapon, and shoot. What exactly do you think he was thinking?

---

You'd need a brain expert to explain why you're so bad at this.

He'd question the brain expert's credentials.

---

Good shooting of a scumbag criminal. The DA should be indicted.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Good shooting of a scumbag criminal. The DA should be indicted.

You're a piece of [BLEEP].

---

I think it's a stretch to conclude that the officer fired in order to prevent the taser from being fired. 
You'd need a brain expert to break down the reaction and processing times in play, and I don't think it will add up.

That's ridiculous and incorrect.

It's apparent you have no real intent to debate in good faith. I'm confident you only want to be a contrarian. You can disagree with whether or not it should be legal, but it absolutely is by-the-book legal. The officer reacted and shot in just over a second. Google says it usually takes .25 - .3 seconds to react. That leaves just about .75 seconds for the officer to fall into the vehicle, remove his weapon, and shoot. What exactly do you think he was thinking?

I promise you, I will never sync up all the available video, slow it down, and break down the reaction times.  I won't even watch most of them. Call that bad faith if you want.

I just think when bullets hit a fleeing suspect in the back and also hit a car with bystanders in it, there's no room to debate that one of two things happened: either the cop acted outside of the law, or the law needs to be changed. Which one of those things is true depends on in-depth study of the video, and I leave that to others. You acknowledge the second possibility, that the law needs to change, and that is to your credit.
But each of us should also have our minds open about the possibility that these officers broke laws already on the books, because, now there's going to be a jury trial about it.

---

Good shooting of a scumbag criminal. The DA should be indicted.

You're a piece of [BLEEP].

He loves it when you say that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You'd need a brain expert to explain why you're so bad at this.

He'd question the brain expert's credentials.

Et tu, TJ?

---

You'd need a brain expert to explain why you're so bad at this.

I think of things others didn't think of.  Some people find it insightful some times.  But, unless you're Elon Musk, you can't go around thinking original thoughts without running the risk of others finding those thoughts irrelevant or unhelpful. Other people with my problem cope with it by keeping their thoughts to themselves.  I choose to get them out and see what sticks.

No expert needed, thanks.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's ridiculous and incorrect.

It's apparent you have no real intent to debate in good faith. I'm confident you only want to be a contrarian. You can disagree with whether or not it should be legal, but it absolutely is by-the-book legal. The officer reacted and shot in just over a second. Google says it usually takes .25 - .3 seconds to react. That leaves just about .75 seconds for the officer to fall into the vehicle, remove his weapon, and shoot. What exactly do you think he was thinking?

I promise you, I will never sync up all the available video, slow it down, and break down the reaction times.  I won't even watch most of them. Call that bad faith if you want.

I just think when bullets hit a fleeing suspect in the back and also hit a car with bystanders in it, there's no room to debate that one of two things happened: either the cop acted outside of the law, or the law needs to be changed. Which one of those things is true depends on in-depth study of the video, and I leave that to others. You acknowledge the second possibility, that the law needs to change, and that is to your credit.
But each of us should also have our minds open about the possibility that these officers broke laws already on the books, because, now there's going to be a jury trial about it.

---

You're a piece of [BLEEP].

He loves it when you say that.

I did open my mind to the possibility that they committed a crime until I watched the videos. I know what the law states, and the officers didn’t violate state or federal law. The only possible argument that the DA can use is that Brooks didn’t initiate the fight and thus the officers started it. So, then the officers couldn’t use deadly force against someone defending themselves. Or, the taser isn’t considered deadly force. Otherwise, the officers’ actions didn’t violate law. 

Since we know Brooks started it, it can’t be the first one. The state law specifically mentions tasers as a deadly weapon, and Howard just a couple weeks ago called it one, we know it isn’t that. This is absolute malicious prosecution.

---

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/12...19328?s=19

---

The officer who stood on his shoulders is actually testifying against them too (to save his own bacon obv)

Turns out that isn’t true. The officers attorney, Don Samuel, said he never agreed to anything. 

After taking to several Atlanta PD guys, and from hearing from other that have too, several precincts worth of officers have called in sick. Mayor Bottoms was begging surrounding jurisdictions to help, but everyone except State Patrol refused, and all they’re doing is picking up accidents.

---

Turns out that isn’t true. The officers attorney, Don Samuel, said he never agreed to anything. 

After taking to several Atlanta PD guys, and from hearing from other that have too, several precincts worth of officers have called in sick. Mayor Bottoms was begging surrounding jurisdictions to help, but everyone except State Patrol refused, and all they’re doing is picking up accidents.

I'm glad. I hope they all use as many sick days as possible. Make her get on tv and beg the cops to comeback.

---

Regardless of the conduct of the cops..... What a cluster. I agree with whoever said APD will be losing officers. Those charges are asinine. Felony murder my [BLEEP]. Bunch of corrupt idiots running the show. I would be handing in my badge because I wouldn't trust any of them to be even remotely unbiased at this point.

---

DAP Life Matters (@Deetroit_Dave) Tweeted:

Family of #RayshardBrooks emotional during the press conference. https://t.co/ybBFAkBR0e https://twitter.com/Deetroit_Dave/status...66048?s=20

My final opinion on all this:

Whatever this man was guilty of in his life, that is for a court of law to decide, not a police officer. He is not a saint. He is not a martyr. He is a human being, the same as me, you, and everybody in this world. Police officers serve to arrest people who break laws, they are not an executioner. Obviously, if they encounter a person who is posing an obvious threat to the lives of others, they should use any force necessary to stop that person. That clearly does not apply in this situation. There were so many things that could have been done in this situation before a life had to be taken.

People [BLEEP] up in this world. I have been arrested before in very similar circumstances. I was young, I was an idiot, and I am now firmly ashamed of my actions. The person I am today bears very little resemblance to that person then. I grew, I changed, and I am proud of the person I am today. Of course, I am a white man... My life continued and I was allowed to grow as a human being.

Today, my wife and child are considered "people of color", as [BLEEP] as that term (and the idea of race in general) is. It terrifies me that my son could make the exact same choices I made in life and not be given a second chance to live, love, and be happy.

Many of you have suggested that this case was either a failure of an individual police officer to follow the rules, or of the rules as a whole that govern police actions. But the truth is it's both... When you give police the power to take life without a second thought, and you have many people in society that are biased against certain groups, these things will always happen. The battle needs to be fought on two fronts; limit the power of police to take lives, and change the hearts and minds of people to end prejudice. Neither of these things will be simple or quick, the battle for equality never is.

I do, however, have some hope for the future. I think we have entered a time of sincere reflection about these things, both politically and morally. I think the white-washed history of the world is beginning to be looked at critically. I fully understand that I could be hopelessly naive about these things, but I am an optimist at heart.

As for the majority of posters on this section of the board, I'm not going to mince words. You are the problem. So many of you are brainwashed by the [BLEEP] you've been fed since you were kids. I'm done arguing here, in many ways I regret breaking my self-imposed ban on commenting in this part of the forum. For any of you that have begun to think differently about the world in the last few weeks, good for you. The world needs more of us who are willing to grow and develop as human beings.

Peace.

---

https://twitter.com/REFORM/status/127341...86080?s=20

---

the police only want to serve when it suits their interests. Take any kind of stand against one of their corrupt officers and they'll cry like babies and not do their job

---

Good shooting of a scumbag criminal. The DA should be indicted.

You're a piece of [BLEEP].

Says the person who supports the people who destroyed the lives of thousands of innocent shopkeepers.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

DAP Life Matters (@Deetroit_Dave) Tweeted:

Family of #RayshardBrooks emotional during the press conference. https://t.co/ybBFAkBR0e https://twitter.com/Deetroit_Dave/status...66048?s=20

My final opinion on all this:

Whatever this man was guilty of in his life, that is for a court of law to decide, not a police officer. He is not a saint. He is not a martyr. He is a human being, the same as me, you, and everybody in this world. Police officers serve to arrest people who break laws, they are not an executioner. Obviously, if they encounter a person who is posing an obvious threat to the lives of others, they should use any force necessary to stop that person. That clearly does not apply in this situation. There were so many things that could have been done in this situation before a life had to be taken.

People [BLEEP] up in this world. I have been arrested before in very similar circumstances. I was young, I was an idiot, and I am now firmly ashamed of my actions. The person I am today bears very little resemblance to that person then. I grew, I changed, and I am proud of the person I am today. Of course, I am a white man... My life continued and I was allowed to grow as a human being.

Today, my wife and child are considered "people of color", as [BLEEP] as that term (and the idea of race in general) is. It terrifies me that my son could make the exact same choices I made in life and not be given a second chance to live, love, and be happy.

Many of you have suggested that this case was either a failure of an individual police officer to follow the rules, or of the rules as a whole that govern police actions. But the truth is it's both... When you give police the power to take life without a second thought, and you have many people in society that are biased against certain groups, these things will always happen. The battle needs to be fought on two fronts; limit the power of police to take lives, and change the hearts and minds of people to end prejudice. Neither of these things will be simple or quick, the battle for equality never is.

I do, however, have some hope for the future. I think we have entered a time of sincere reflection about these things, both politically and morally. I think the white-washed history of the world is beginning to be looked at critically. I fully understand that I could be hopelessly naive about these things, but I am an optimist at heart.

As for the majority of posters on this section of the board, I'm not going to mince words. You are the problem. So many of you are brainwashed by the [BLEEP] you've been fed since you were kids. I'm done arguing here, in many ways I regret breaking my self-imposed ban on commenting in this part of the forum. For any of you that have begun to think differently about the world in the last few weeks, good for you. The world needs more of us who are willing to grow and develop as human beings.

Peace.

---

https://twitter.com/REFORM/status/127341...86080?s=20

Freely choosing to drive drunk, passing out in the car and then fighting two police officers is not the fault of “the system”.

---

DAP Life Matters (@Deetroit_Dave) Tweeted:

Family of #RayshardBrooks emotional during the press conference. https://t.co/ybBFAkBR0e https://twitter.com/Deetroit_Dave/status...66048?s=20

My final opinion on all this:

Whatever this man was guilty of in his life, that is for a court of law to decide, not a police officer. He is not a saint. He is not a martyr. He is a human being, the same as me, you, and everybody in this world. Police officers serve to arrest people who break laws, they are not an executioner. Obviously, if they encounter a person who is posing an obvious threat to the lives of others, they should use any force necessary to stop that person. That clearly does not apply in this situation. There were so many things that could have been done in this situation before a life had to be taken.

People [BLEEP] up in this world. I have been arrested before in very similar circumstances. I was young, I was an idiot, and I am now firmly ashamed of my actions. The person I am today bears very little resemblance to that person then. I grew, I changed, and I am proud of the person I am today. Of course, I am a white man... My life continued and I was allowed to grow as a human being.

Today, my wife and child are considered "people of color", as [BLEEP] as that term (and the idea of race in general) is. It terrifies me that my son could make the exact same choices I made in life and not be given a second chance to live, love, and be happy.

Many of you have suggested that this case was either a failure of an individual police officer to follow the rules, or of the rules as a whole that govern police actions. But the truth is it's both... When you give police the power to take life without a second thought, and you have many people in society that are biased against certain groups, these things will always happen. The battle needs to be fought on two fronts; limit the power of police to take lives, and change the hearts and minds of people to end prejudice. Neither of these things will be simple or quick, the battle for equality never is.

I do, however, have some hope for the future. I think we have entered a time of sincere reflection about these things, both politically and morally. I think the white-washed history of the world is beginning to be looked at critically. I fully understand that I could be hopelessly naive about these things, but I am an optimist at heart.

As for the majority of posters on this section of the board, I'm not going to mince words. You are the problem. So many of you are brainwashed by the [BLEEP] you've been fed since you were kids. I'm done arguing here, in many ways I regret breaking my self-imposed ban on commenting in this part of the forum. For any of you that have begun to think differently about the world in the last few weeks, good for you. The world needs more of us who are willing to grow and develop as human beings.

Peace.

---

https://twitter.com/REFORM/status/127341...86080?s=20

Just so I understand you clearly, you were driving drunk, then assaulted an officer, stole his taser, then tried to fire it at him? And you're still alive today? You're right, the system IS broken.

---

Just so I understand you clearly, you were driving drunk, then assaulted an officer, stole his taser, then tried to fire it at him? And you're still alive today? You're right, the system IS broken.

Do not expect an honest answer from him on this. He has proven himself to be a liar and a racist. It's very clear in his posts.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Good shooting of a scumbag criminal. The DA should be indicted.

You're a piece of [BLEEP].

Sure, keep defending the criminals. We know your game.

---

That's ridiculous and incorrect.

It's apparent you have no real intent to debate in good faith. I'm confident you only want to be a contrarian. You can disagree with whether or not it should be legal, but it absolutely is by-the-book legal. The officer reacted and shot in just over a second. Google says it usually takes .25 - .3 seconds to react. That leaves just about .75 seconds for the officer to fall into the vehicle, remove his weapon, and shoot. What exactly do you think he was thinking?

I promise you, I will never sync up all the available video, slow it down, and break down the reaction times.  I won't even watch most of them. Call that bad faith if you want.

I just think when bullets hit a fleeing suspect in the back and also hit a car with bystanders in it, there's no room to debate that one of two things happened: either the cop acted outside of the law, or the law needs to be changed. Which one of those things is true depends on in-depth study of the video, and I leave that to others. You acknowledge the second possibility, that the law needs to change, and that is to your credit.
But each of us should also have our minds open about the possibility that these officers broke laws already on the books, because, now there's going to be a jury trial about it.

---

You're a piece of [BLEEP].

He loves it when you say that.

Hardly, I'm apathetic to what he or anyone else says.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The funny part about all of this... everyone saying the cop should have done things differently... have never been in a physical confrontation in their lives - so they have zero idea how they'd react. Probably cry and say, "why'd you hit me, I love everyone!"

---