zlacker

>>colawa+(OP)
In the last few weeks many cities have passed laws to bring more transparency to police brutality.

This is a good step, but I am curious - how much are these laws enforceable? I was just reading that some Atlanta cops are not reporting to work - protest for the arrest of the cop who shot Rayshard Brooks. If that is the mentality, how much cooperation can we expect? Not talking about this particular NYC law, just in general.

>>akudha+cA
The cops that walked out regarding the charges for the RB shooting did so because it seems the DA is contradicting Georgia law, and his own statements from a few weeks ago.

A taser is considered a deadly weapon under GA law and the DA had charged other officers a few weeks ago with using a taser as a deadly weapon. Now he is saying its not a deadly weapon when stolen and used against them, and didn't warrant deadly force to be used in return. He also didn't even wait for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's report with the facts on the shooting.

That's why the police walked out. Form all account's I have seen so far, that officer seems to have followed that department's use of force continuum guidelines correctly and GA law but was still charged for seemingly political points by a DA who is up for re-election. You're not going to get cooperation when cops feel that they have done everything according to policy/state law and can still get charged because an angry mob demands it.

Here is a breakdown from a former police officer who dives into it a little further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5QEnGkIbzA

>>tomsch+HW
I agree that this case is debatable, but you left out the fact that RB was running away when shot. The officer did not shoot in self-defense.

Also we would expect any regular citizen to be arrested and charged in this situation. That's precisely what courts are for - to sort out whether the details are strong enough to warrant conviction. Police should not have some informal parallel justice system outside of the courts - that's the whole point.

>>mindsl+zP1
The officer did shoot in self defense. Rayshard shot the taser as he was running away. The officer when seeing the taser being pointed at him immediately dropped his own and drew his sidearm and fired. By that time (under half a second) the taser had fired at him and RB had turned back around with the taser still in his hand. Taser X2s have two shots instead of one, so he was still armed with a deadly weapon according to GA law. He showed utter disregard for the life of the officer whom he fired at and escalated the situation to deadly force. He escalated the situation from a simple and cordial DUI arrest to deadly force because he didn’t want to go back to jail for a parole violation.

From everything I have seen the cop was justified by law. Still a shitty situation but this smells of politics by the DA.

Edit: forgot to mention that Tennessee vs Garner established that officers have justification to use deadly force to stop someone fleeing who is a deadly danger to the public.

>>tomsch+BR1
Continuing to chase and shooting RB in the back contradicts the claim of self defense. At any time, the officer could have stopped the immediate chase and ended the confrontation. This would have been the prudent thing to do, given that they had his ID (and his car), and the two officers hadn't recovered from being overwhelmed.

This is a good example of why responding officers shouldn't carry firearms or even tasers on their person - they're too quick to keep escalating like they see on TV. If a suspect violently escapes arrest, then send in a larger armed crew with a deliberate plan.

re your addition: Seems like a decision that enables bad policing. Nothing about the situation makes it seem like RB was actually a danger to the public, but the police will push that justification all day long to legitimize what was essentially a personal ego escalation.

>>mindsl+sT1
You’re arguing the morality not the legality. I’m arguing the latter, specifically related to the DA in this case bringing up charges against and officer where by law he seems more than covered. That’s it.