Things will get interesting in Atlanta
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
Didn’t you go to school and got your green with yellow wheels degree to defend the guilty? I thought so.
What lesson did he learn now that he’s dead? What lesson did the rest of the country learn ? The country that has already been protesting police brutality for three weeks?
Both city and suburbs but I’ve “heard” it the same in many other places, including much of fla. I think it was in response to MADD and some higher profile drunk driving cases.
When I was a kid the cops would drive you home to face your parents or spouse . . .
. . . with my dad that would have been punishment . . . .
Oh for sure!! Guys used to have empties in the backseat and not think much of it.
TL;DR most of it. You can twist it anyway you want or isolate any one aspect of it. I’m not arguing legality, & I’m not portending that the cops did everything right. I’m simply saying that IN MY OPINION if a convicted felon, in the process of committing multiple more felonies including attempting to use a weapon on the police gets shot, I’m fine with it. White, black, purple, whatever.
If we’re going to compare collateral damage, let’s compare drunk driving to stray bullets from police...
I prefer he accepts accountability for his actions. He is dead because he failed to do so. I hate that he died but again why run why resist? I mean its easy for you to say "you prefer that he's dead" after the fact.
What I would prefer is that he was caught drunk passed out in a drive thru, the police approached him he knew he was in the wrong let the officers do their job and take him to the drunk tank. Maybe he learns his lesson, hopefully, but one thing is for certain he wasn't allowed to drive away and hurt someone and he would still be with us today.
I remember the days of walking a drunk home and thankfully they are gone, I still remember being a few buses back from the Carolton Kentucky crash in 1988 where a drunk driver his a school bus coming back from Kings Island.
Most suspects that resist are probably more than suspects, but I get your point.
It’s not about learning lessons. It’s about protecting people.
OK . . . should Rolfe be held accountable for his actions?
I'm not reading through this trash of a thread. I can only take so much of JDB and crew blowing their loads over a black person committing a crime.
One thing I will say is that its complete BS when anyone brings up his past crimes as justification for being killed by the cops.
One thing I will say is that its complete BS when anyone brings up his past crimes as justification for being killed by the cops.
I think you're missing my point, about what the cops knew. Rolfe KNEW that Brooks was unarmed other than an already discharged taser when he fired three shots. Presumably, Rolfe would know how the taser Atl officers are issued work. He also shot him twice in the back and fired a third shot, which struck someone's SUV.
They had NOT called for backup and evidently felt comfortable enough with Brooks to let him drive his own vehicle and park it. Had the run on his id turned up a cause for concern, I doubt they would have let him drive his own vehicle...
Wasn't the rationale for the cop to shoot Michael Brown that Brown was advancing towards him and he perceived a threat to his life?
Hard for Rolfe to argue that when he shot Brooks twice in the back. I'm no marksman, but isn't it pretty hard to shoot someone in the back if they are facing you?
Why shoot for ultimate mass on a person running away from you carrying what was likely a useless taser? If you shoot at his leg and miss twice, is it even viable to claim that you fear he would now charge you and attack you with his bare hands?
Do you think that even with the added complaints of resisting arrest and assault that Brooks was the worst offender Atlanta police dealt with that night? And yet for some reason, other officers managed to arrest "dangerous criminals" who likely were actively engaging in violent activity without killing them.
Unfortunately these guys for whatever reason chose a different route...I just don't think shooting Brooks in the back was the only or even best alternative and that Rolfe's poor judgement is perhaps the reason they fired him immediately... Remember, there were witnesses, in addition to whatever video you and I may or may not have seen yet...
Since he had no car by that point, I think you mean to compare drunk running to stray bullets from police
Right I saw that after I posted. Believe it or not, when I started that post, it was the most recent post in the thread. I type really slow...
I suspect you spend a lot of time "on the lamb".
Right. Because we all know that same exact or very close to it scenario doesn't happen hundreds of times a night in various locales across the US? But in THIS particular incident, it would somehow have enraged you? I wonder what the possible difference could be...
Did I miss something? Was Brooks driving his car at the officers as a weapon, so they could reasonably infer that he was intent on going out and injuring/killing someone in a hit and run?
I get the idea that if we were debating Amadou Diallo here, some of you guys would argue that it was his fault he was shot at 41 times (19 hits) by 4 undercover officers who saw him standing in the vestibule of his apartment building, mistook him for a rape suspect and advanced on him without announcing they were even police officers. They claimed he had reached in his pocket and pulled out a weapon, but it was in fact his wallet, which he likely was pulling out to show ID.
I mean that's like the scene out of Bonnie and Clyde where the FBI guys blast the car with machine guns and basically shred the bodies. But after reading this thread I have no doubt. Some of you would not only vote to exonerate the officers but would bend over backwards to invent reasons you felt Amadou was to blame for his own execution. Someone would likely claim he was not just standing there relaxing but was actually plotting to hijack a car and go on a crime spree...
As I explained, I type slow and hadn't seen any posts with the probation info when I made my posts asking for links. But I still wonder about the fact that they supposedly viwed him as a dangerous felon, yet they let him move his own car? If Rolfe didn't know he was on probation, then imo that makes his decision to shoot at mass even more questionable...
Btw, the DA originally advised that the other officer had agreed to testify against Rolfe. That officer's lawyer refuted that saying "no deal" had been reached. But that to me begs the question, what was it the State felt the other officer could shed light on and reveal that made him a witness in their eyes? Maybe the comments and or actions Rolfe made in the interim between the shooting and the arrival of backup?
After rewatching it's clear that Brooks fire the taser at Rolfe, and in avoiding it Rolfe basically leans against another car. Brooks never really actually turns around to face Rolfe, just seems to kind of twist and stick his arm behind him and sort of haphazardly fire the taser...
So the issue of what Rolfe would know about the taser seems critical. Clearly Rolfe doesn't even shoot at Brooks until after the taser has discharged and Brooks is running away from Rolfe with his back to him. I'm not sure Rolfe could argue that he feared Brooks would turn around and run towards him in attack mode- he shot him twice in the back. He also can't claim (like that transit cop in Oakland a few years back) that he mistook his Glock for his taser.
And then the DA specifically noted statements from witnesses. I'm thinking that there were reasons the DA went with FELONY murder, and not 2nd degree or manslaughter. We may not really know more till the trial, but I go back to the DA mentioning that the other officer was going to testify against Rolfe...
Dude he did NOT "leave". The video prior to the shooting shows the cops letting him drive his car to a parking place and park it. I doubt that is SOP when cops feel like they are dealing with a "dangerous criminal"...
Whomever the criminal may harm. Maybe he wouldn’t harm anyone. I’d rather not chance it. If you live in that neighborhood, what percentage of another crime being committed (drunk driving, assaulting someone, which he had already shown he was willing to do), are you willing to deem acceptable?
You should read the posts in their entirety to completely understand my post.
I'm not sure what lesson the country learned? Quite frankly I'm concerned only with what I and my family learned which is be accountable for your actions. I haven't been paying much attention to what certain cities are doing to protest anything, the event that happened in Minneapolis is dreadful and it should be punished as such, but to make this a nationwide issue to me is a bit crazy and allows some that if truly asked do not care, to get out and in some instances act ignorantly. Stealing and destroying are not protesting, and quite frankly the those types of actions greatly diminish the affect/message the peaceful protestors are trying to make.
Dude he obviously left somewhere unless Wendy's is now serving cocktails with their burgers. He didn't just drive up to Wendy's and all of a sudden become drunk. I was referring to the before Wendy's events. Are we clear, I mean crystal clear now?
That's a pretty odd standard for lethal force. A person may harm someone at some point, so to avoid any further crime just shoot them?
You like many should read the subsequent posts to fully understand my post, like normal you jump to conclusion to make a point that was not need to be made. I don't know who Diallo is or anything about him so that example doesn't even come close to mean anything to me.
I'd humbly suggest that it would benefit you to learn who Diallo is as it might give you some additional context as you comment on current events.
Similar threads
