US police not treated fairly, claims Donald Trump after Rayshard Brooks shooting

Watch
Daveological
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
Donald Trump said Wednesday that US police have "not been treated fairly" and appeared to defend a white officer charged with the murder of a black man.

http://www.msn.com/en-xl/northameric...ng/ar-BB15Fl1H

So when he offers solidarity... he offers solidarity with the police?
0
reply
Moonbow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by Daveological)
Donald Trump said Wednesday that US police have "not been treated fairly" and appeared to defend a white officer charged with the murder of a black man.

http://www.msn.com/en-xl/northameric...ng/ar-BB15Fl1H

So when he offers solidarity... he offers solidarity with the police?
Trump picks his moments 🙄
0
reply
King Dracula
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Daveological)
Donald Trump said Wednesday that US police have "not been treated fairly" and appeared to defend a white officer charged with the murder of a black man.

http://www.msn.com/en-xl/northameric...ng/ar-BB15Fl1H

So when he offers solidarity... he offers solidarity with the police?
If these coppers step in the shoes of God and choose who to kill and who to let live, they are murdering scum and deserve prison. Trump is and always will be a pillock. But, not all white people are guilty.
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
There are bad eggs in both camps, but most are good. BLM refuses to see that, so does Trump. It’s a balancing act.
1
reply
Daveological
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by King Dracula)
If these coppers step in the shoes of God and choose who to kill and who to let live, they are murdering scum and deserve prison. Trump is and always will be a pillock. But, not all white people are guilty.
Not all white people are guilty, but there is still a racism problem in US police.
0
reply
King Dracula
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Daveological)
Not all white people are guilty, but there is still a racism problem in US police.
Eliminate the problem and the racism will cease to exist. In order to do this, all the racist coppers need to be imprisoned or sacked.
0
reply
Daveological
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by King Dracula)
Eliminate the problem and the racism will cease to exist. In order to do this, all the racist coppers need to be imprisoned or sacked.
The problem is that it's difficult to do because of support systems that racist police have. It means that they usually have to kill someone to be sacked.
0
reply
King Dracula
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Daveological)
The problem is that it's difficult to do because of support systems that racist police have. It means that they usually have to kill someone to be sacked.
Honestly, I don't think this would happen if Obama was re-elected. Trump is driving the US into the ground. Maybe, it's time to kill him and then racism ends.
0
reply
Daveological
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by King Dracula)
Honestly, I don't think this would happen if Obama was re-elected. Trump is driving the US into the ground. Maybe, it's time to kill him and then racism ends.
The cult of Trump is poisoning both the GOP and America at this point. Can't we switch him and JFK?
0
reply
King Dracula
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Daveological)
The cult of Trump is poisoning both the GOP and America at this point. Can't we switch him and JFK?
If only, hopefully the BLM protest would end then.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
I agree.
America has a horrifying problem with habitual criminality, excessive force and corruption.
But bad apples like the aryan brotherhood, corrupt cops, gangsters, hate criminals, kkk, sexual offenders, the mob, Mark Fuhrman, toxic incels and the wbc- they are the unpleasant few who cause an immense amount of trouble for everyone else.
0
reply
Nevi
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Daveological)
Donald Trump said Wednesday that US police have "not been treated fairly" and appeared to defend a white officer charged with the murder of a black man.

http://www.msn.com/en-xl/northameric...ng/ar-BB15Fl1H

So when he offers solidarity... he offers solidarity with the police?
Tbh I stopped listening to him in 2016. His opinion isn’t all that valid after the 4 years of 🐂💩 that have come out. He thinks he’s in some sorta action movie. Its honestly like one of those city builder games where you feel like pressing the nuke button to get a super duper achievement for your profile.

I hope the people speak for him in the election. God forbid he have another 4 years in the white house 😂
0
reply
AT06
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
Not a single person here has actually addressed the question. Instead you have all just widened the net into a generalised debate about racism, BLM, etc.

The question is whether Donald Trump, or anyone for that matter, is justified in defending the police officers actions in the Rayshard Brooks shooting.

As someone that’s watched the whole 1 hour plus video of the shooting, I will provide a summary of the exact events that unfolded:

1. Brooks drinks and drives
2. Brooks fails police sobriety test
3. Brooks is arrested for drink driving
4. Brooks immediately resists arrest when the officers begin to place him in cuffs (everything has been polite between the officers and Brooks up to this point)
5. Brooks begins to fight the two police officers who couldn’t subdue him, even with a taser
4. Brooks begins to grab onto one of the officers tasers
5. Brooks breaks free of the officers, and begins to run with the officers taser in his hand
6. The police officers chase after Brooks, neither have their guns drawn at this point
7. Brooks turns around, points the taser at one of the officers chasing him, and shoots the taser at him
8. The officer now draws his gun
9. The officer fired his gun 3 times at Brooks

So with that series of events clarified, there is a simple fact that Brooks was drink driving, he was lawfully arrested, he chose to fight the officers, he chose to steal a police taser and fire it at officers, and in doing so he sealed his fate and was shot.

Instead of all you woke people making this about BLM, police brutality, or whatever woke political pandering you want to make this about, why don’t you actually objectively look at the events and then consider if there is a case to answer. ALL of the video evidence points to this being an entirely justified shooting, and regardless of what people think of Trump (I think he’s a nutter for info), he is absolutely correct to defend the actions of these officers that have now been unjustly fired and charged with murder.
Last edited by AT06; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
Poor timing and poor phrasing but he has a point... seeing the thousands upon thousands of officers in the country smeared by the actions of a handful is by definition unfair..
0
reply
ker2000
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by AT06)
Not a single person here has actually addressed the question. Instead you have all just widened the net into a generalised debate about racism, BLM, etc.

The question is whether Donald Trump, or anyone for that matter, is justified in defending the police officers actions in the Rayshard Brooks shooting.

As someone that’s watched the whole 1 hour plus video of the shooting, I will provide a summary of the exact events that unfolded:

1. Brooks drinks and drives
2. Brooks fails police sobriety test
3. Brooks is arrested for drink driving
4. Brooks immediately resists arrest when the officers begin to place him in cuffs (everything has been polite between the officers and Brooks up to this point)
5. Brooks begins to fight the two police officers who couldn’t subdue him, even with a taser
4. Brooks begins to grab onto one of the officers tasers
5. Brooks breaks free of the officers, and begins to run with the officers taser in his hand
6. The police officers chase after Brooks, neither have their guns drawn at this point
7. Brooks turns around, points the taser at one of the officers chasing him, and shoots the taser at him
8. The officer now draws his gun
9. The officer fired his gun 3 times at Brooks

So with that series of events clarified, there is a simple fact that Brooks was drink driving, he was lawfully arrested, he chose to fight the officers, he chose to steal a police taser and fire it at officers, and in doing so he sealed his fate and was shot.

Instead of all you woke people making this about BLM, police brutality, or whatever woke political pandering you want to make this about, why don’t you actually objectively look at the events and then consider if there is a case to answer. ALL of the video evidence points to this being an entirely justified shooting, and regardless of what people think of Trump (I think he’s a nutter for info), he is absolutely correct to defend the actions of these officers that have now been unjustly fired and charged with murder.
Yes, you're absolutely right, people deserve to be executed for drink driving. Especially now, when everything is so rosy and it's inconceivable that someone would be so desperate as to abuse alcohol.

I'm sure if it was your relative you'd feel the same way.
0
reply
glassalice
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by AT06)
Not a single person here has actually addressed the question. Instead you have all just widened the net into a generalised debate about racism, BLM, etc.

The question is whether Donald Trump, or anyone for that matter, is justified in defending the police officers actions in the Rayshard Brooks shooting.

As someone that’s watched the whole 1 hour plus video of the shooting, I will provide a summary of the exact events that unfolded:

1. Brooks drinks and drives
2. Brooks fails police sobriety test
3. Brooks is arrested for drink driving
4. Brooks immediately resists arrest when the officers begin to place him in cuffs (everything has been polite between the officers and Brooks up to this point)
5. Brooks begins to fight the two police officers who couldn’t subdue him, even with a taser
4. Brooks begins to grab onto one of the officers tasers
5. Brooks breaks free of the officers, and begins to run with the officers taser in his hand
6. The police officers chase after Brooks, neither have their guns drawn at this point
7. Brooks turns around, points the taser at one of the officers chasing him, and shoots the taser at him
8. The officer now draws his gun
9. The officer fired his gun 3 times at Brooks

So with that series of events clarified, there is a simple fact that Brooks was drink driving, he was lawfully arrested, he chose to fight the officers, he chose to steal a police taser and fire it at officers, and in doing so he sealed his fate and was shot.

Instead of all you woke people making this about BLM, police brutality, or whatever woke political pandering you want to make this about, why don’t you actually objectively look at the events and then consider if there is a case to answer. ALL of the video evidence points to this being an entirely justified shooting, and regardless of what people think of Trump (I think he’s a nutter for info), he is absolutely correct to defend the actions of these officers that have now been unjustly fired and charged with murder.
A taser doesn't pose a significant threat to life, so there was absolutely no need to kill him.

However, was he killed by the police because of his colour? OR, rather is the over zealous use of guns by the American police force the issue here? OR, did the indervidual officer involved make a particularly poor and impulsive decision on the basis that he didn't fancy getting tasered, which doesn't reflect on the rest of the police?

As a white person I wouldn’t steal an officers taser and expect to get out of the situation unharmed.
Last edited by glassalice; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
AT06
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by glassalice)
A taser doesn't pose a significant threat to life, so there was absolutely no need to kill him.

However, was he killed by the police because of his colour? OR, rather is the over zealous use of guns by the American police force the issue here? OR, did the indervidual officer involved make a particularly poor and impulsive decision on the basis that he didn't fancy getting tasered, which doesn't reflect on the rest of the police?

As a white person I wouldn’t steal an officers taser and expect to get out of the situation unharmed.
On your comments about race, the facts are that Officer Brosnan responded to a call about a person driving whilst drunk. Officer Brosnan requested the assistance of officer Rolfe who has specialised training conducting DUI investigations - so obviously Officer Brosnan wanted to treat Brooks fairly and have an objective assessment made, doesn’t sound very racist does it. The DUI investigation that followed was routine, and Officer Rolfe determined there was probable cause to arrest Brooks. For the 40 minutes up to this point it’s clear both officers were courteous, and following proper procedures to make a fair assessment if an offence had been committed - doesn’t sound very racists does it. It was only when the cuffs were gently put on that Brooks flipped and suddenly began to struggle, and attack both the officers - the officers in no way instigated it, again doesn’t sound very racist does it. So when the facts present no evidence these officers were racist, why do you and other people question or imply it’s racist? That in and of itself is pretty presumptive and wrong.

On your comments about the subsequent use of force, how did you come to the conclusion a taser isn’t a threat to life? I think you have to appreciate countries have different laws to us. And under Georgia state law Brooks forcefully resisting arrest and actually attacking officers is felony obstruction, and all Georgia citizens including police officers are entitled to use deadly force by law to defend themselves from forcible felonies.

Just to go into a little more detail on this for everyone’s benefit, let me explain how Brooks satisfied that use of force criteria. The video clearly shows both the officers attempted to use the least amount of force to end the encounter and ensure their safety. Brooks continued to fight and escalate until he actually punched Officer Rolfe in the face, again a felony offence in Georgia. Brooks then forcibly took Officer Brosnans taser, another felony offence. A taser is an offensive weapon under a Georgia State Law, and declared a deadly weapon by the same District Attorney now prosecuting the officers! At this point they are still fighting on the ground, and Brooks now points the taser at Officer Brosnans head and shoots him with the taser, another felony. Officer Rolfe then deploys his taser, but it has no effect and both officers still struggle to subdue Brooks, who then breaks free and begins running whilst still armed with Officer Brosnans taser. But instead of continuing to run, he actually pauses, points, and fires that taser at Officer Rolfe - another felony offence. Now imagine a taser being fired at you; it’s loud like a gunshot, and produces a big flash like a gun going off - so Officer Rolfe did what any officer would do in that circumstance, and pulled out his gun and fired it. Both officers then contained the suspect, and immediately called for an ambulance and began life-saving measures.

The law, whether you agree with it or not, states a police officer may use deadly force “...when he reasonably believes the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.” Brooks chose to attack these officers, steal one of their tasers, and fire it directly at one of them - he took the risk at that point that the officers may, in line with the law, respond with deadly force.

Now the reason for such a long reply is that I’m sick of people lblowing up situations into something they are not. Why did people feel the need, instead objectively assessing the clear facts, to start escalating this into a wider discussion it’s clearly got nothing to do with? If you disagree with that statement, present me some clear facts that point to this being racist or excessive force against the clear letter of the law - if you can’t, then you are part of the problem. I think that’s just woke ignorance, and it’s abhorrent that our society is becoming so presumptive. And what’s perhaps most disgusting is how these police officers are now being treated as scapegoats, and how the District Attorney (DA) that has decided to prosecute them is clearly acting without any regard for professional obligations in pursuit of his own reelection! Under Georgia state Rules of Professional Conduct, a DA is prohibited from making “extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” The DA is only allowed to release information to the public of the nature and extent of the accused actions “that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” Many of the comments the DA has made are false, or highly disputable against clear video evidence. The official investigation hasn’t even been completed yet, but he’s charged the officer with 11 felonies!

This whole situation, and how people are jumping on the bandwagon and not looking at it objectively for what it actually was, is disgusting and just shows how society is both idiotic, and woefully ignorant.
Last edited by AT06; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Daveological)
Donald Trump said Wednesday that US police have "not been treated fairly" and appeared to defend a white officer charged with the murder of a black man.

http://www.msn.com/en-xl/northameric...ng/ar-BB15Fl1H

So when he offers solidarity... he offers solidarity with the police?
Donald Trump does not care about those people. He is only trying to appeal to his base, who he thinks are pro-police racists.

He claimed to be the greatest supporter of the military, but then he derided and insulted John McCain, who Trump told should have ended his life when he was captured in conflict. When McCain passed away and it was a public affair, Trump tried to attend to get part of the limelight. This was the same thing that happened with the George Bush Sr. People should not be deluded about Trump.
0
reply
glassalice
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by AT06)
On your comments about race, the facts are that Officer Brosnan responded to a call about a person driving whilst drunk. Officer Brosnan requested the assistance of officer Rolfe who has specialised training conducting DUI investigations - so obviously Officer Brosnan wanted to treat Brooks fairly and have an objective assessment made, doesn’t sound very racist does it. The DUI investigation that followed was routine, and Officer Rolfe determined there was probable cause to arrest Brooks. For the 40 minutes up to this point it’s clear both officers were courteous, and following proper procedures to make a fair assessment if an offence had been committed - doesn’t sound very racists does it. It was only when the cuffs were gently put on that Brooks flipped and suddenly began to struggle, and attack both the officers - the officers in no way instigated it, again doesn’t sound very racist does it.

On your comments about the subsequent use of force, how did you come to the conclusion a taser isn’t a threat to life? I think you have to appreciate countries have different laws to us. And under Georgia state law Brooks forcefully resisting arrest and actually attacking officers is felony obstruction, and all Georgia citizens including police officers are entitled to use deadly force by law to defend themselves from forcible felonies.

Just to go into that in a little more detail, let me explain how Brooks satisfied that use of force criteria. The video clearly shows both the officers attempted to use the least amount of force to end the encounter and ensure their safety. Brooks continued to fight and escalate until he actually punched Officer Rolfe in the face, again a felony offence in Georgia. Brooks then forcibly took Officer Brosnans taser, another felony offence. A taser is an offensive weapon under a Georgia State Law, and declared a deadly weapon by the same District Attorney now prosecuting the officers! At this point they are still fighting on the ground, and Brooks now points the taser at Officer Brosnans head and shoots him with the taser, another felony. Officer Rolfe then deploys his taser, but it has no effect and both officers still struggle to subdue Brooks who then breaks free and begins running whilst still armed with Officer Brosnans taser. But instead of continuing to run, he actually pauses, points, and fires that taser at Officer Rolfe, another felony offence. Now imagine a taser being fired at you; it’s loud like a gunshot, and produces a big flash like a gun going off - so Officer Rolfe did what any officer would do in that circumstance, and pulled out his gun and fired it. Both officers then contained the suspect, and immediately called for an ambulance and began life-saving measures.

The law, whether you agree with it or not, states a police officer may use deadly force “...when he reasonably believes the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.” Brooks chose to attack these officers, steal one of their tasers, and fire it directly at one of them - he took the risk at that point that the officers may, in line with the law, respond with deadly force.

Now the reason for such a long reply is that I’m sick of people like you blowing up situations into something they are not. Why did you feel the need, instead objectively assessing the clear facts, to start escalating this situation into a wider discussion based on the facts it’s nothing to do with. I think that’s just woke ignorance, and it’s abhorrent that our society is becoming like that. But what’s perhaps most disgusting is how these police officers are now being treated as scapegoats, and how the District Attorney (DA) that’s decided to prosecute them is clearly acting act without regard for professional obligations in pursuit of his own reelection! Under Georgia state Rules of Professional Conduct, a DA is prohibited from making “extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” The DA is only allowed to release information to the public of the nature and extent of the accused actions “that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” Many of the comments the DA has made are false, or highly disputable against clear video evidence. The official investigation hasn’t even been completed, yet he’s charged the officer with 11 felonies.

This whole situation, and how people are jumping on the bandwagon and not looking at it objectively for what it actually was, is disgusting.
Thank you for providing a legal perspective on it.
My post very much suggested that I didn't think that the police acted in a racist way.
Last edited by glassalice; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
AT06
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by glassalice)
Thank you for providing a legal perspective on it.
I very much suggested that I didn't think that the police acted in a racist way.
No problem, and apologies if I read your comment in the wrong way. But a lot of people have jumped to conclusions on this case as part of the bandwagon, and these officers really are being scapegoated because of it. Hence why I’m so passionate about presenting the clear facts haha!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (39)
8.01%
Confident (65)
13.35%
Indifferent (70)
14.37%
Unsure (121)
24.85%
Worried (192)
39.43%

Watched Threads

View All