THE SILENT MAJORITY STANDS WITH OFFICER ROLFE. YOU CAN'T TELL ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT AFTER WATCHING THIS YOU THINK HE'S UNJUSTIFIED IN SHOOTING BROOKS.
(youtu.be)
🐂 Bullshit 💩
Comments (777)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
This is the point they're going to use to crucify this cop. They will argue that there was no emergency. They will argue that Brooks stole a non-lethal weapon and was fleeing at the time that he was shot.
The only hope this guy has is if he gets a very, very good lawyer. Even then, depending on how the case is handled...it might not be enough.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-tasers-in/black-americans-disproportionately-die-in-police-taser-confrontations-idUSKBN23M16E
liberals say they are lethal when it is convenient
it's all possible. they do it all the time.
The perp had a tazer and was capable of incapacitating the cops. No good. Then he can grab their weapons.
Completely agree. But since he was killed before that could happen, they will absolutely create this alternate narrative where he was just a poor boy who did nothing wrong.
Weapon, Action, Opportunity.
That’s the “Deadly Force Triangle” and the dude showed all three. The cop was justified.
Weapon = taser Action = taking it, pointing it Opportunity = nothing was in the way of him firing it
Exactly. His job was to chase and apprehend him at that time. Multiple offenses including felony up to this point. Shooting behind you while running could incapacitate the cop who is carrying a firearm. This is all such a joke.
I am 100% with you. But that's not how these people think. They think "non-lethal weapon does not require lethal force" and that's where their logic stops.
No worries, I understand. This is a heated topic and your anger is definitely justified. I didn't take it personally at all.
Anyway, that graphic is really helpful and you can clearly see how things continued to escalate. The officers were absolutely handling the situation correctly...you might even argue that they waited to long to escalate their response to an increasingly belligerent offender.
That's why they are referred to a less-lethal. Not non-lethal, not less-than-lethal. Less lethal means it's not intended to cause death, but the potential exists. He even aims the taser, and I think he fires it. That's all the elements necessary for lethal force: the means (the taser), the opportunity (aiming it at the cops), and intent (also aiming it at the cops, and/or firing it.)
Within policy, well within the law. Open shut. Even borderlines on a malicious prosecution, wrongful termination all to score some political points.
If this goes through, good luck when police aren't responding to a motherfucking thing. But try and defend yourself? The police will be there to arrest you and prosecute you though.
Didn't he steal a taser and shoot it at an officer?
Yeah, but it was at wendys. Could just as easily have been a chicken wing. /s
All it says is “in the case of self defense or emergency.”
It doesn’t mention what kind of self defense or emergency. You could argue that just resisting arrest and wrestling warrants self defense.
It does not say that the officer must be acting in self defense against a deadly weapon. It simply says self defense or emergency.
For example, in CA you can only use deadly force if you realistically fear for your life and feel like if you don’t use deadly force, you will be killed. It is explicitly written that way. This law doesn’t seem to elaborate on self defense or emergency. I don’t think this will stick if he gets a good lawyer.
I certainly hope you're right.