Comments by "Bear" (@bear3663) on "The New York Times" channel.

  1. He wasn't unarmed, he was actively shooting the officer's firearm trying to incapacitate the officer. If a drugged out drunk fires a taser at YOU, you would feel safe?
    1
  2. It is possible that he could have driven him home if he didn't resist arrest, or just brought him to the drunk tank to sober up. Either way, they couldn't just let him drive or walk home drunk, so they would have needed to take him into custody whether they take him home or jail.
    1
  3. Because it is illegal for him to walk home while drunk. Because he was a violent felon who violated his probation by committing a crime. He was going to go to prison for his crimes.
    1
  4. You ignored the part where this man stole a firearm (taser) and was shot immediately after he fired it at the officer.
    1
  5. The suspect fired a deadly weapon at the officer, so yes this was justified. He had not done that, he would have been alive.
    1
  6. If they aren't a threat and running away, then sure. However, while he was running away, he had also just used deadly force while running away. So, he was taken down. That isn't cowardly to defend himself.
    1
  7. Well, he heard a shot, because the man shot the taser at the officer.
    1
  8. It isn't murder. Brooks fired deadly force at the officer, so the officer took him out.
    1
  9.  @jeromegarcia5396  No, I formed two separate and complete sentences. I am sorry if English is hard for you.
    1
  10.  @jeromegarcia5396  You're childish. Take care.
    1
  11. Not necessarily, but they are authorized to use lethal force on someone who is fleeing and is firing a weapon at them.
    1
  12. The man shot a deadly weapon at the cop, he made the choice that caused his own death.
    1
  13. Unless the suspect is firing a deadly weapon with his back turned, in which case, shoot away.
    1
  14. Because he was, in fact, driving drunk. He was so drunk that he passed out, in fact. He wasn't being responsible, he passed out. If he had pulled into a parking spot to sleep, then he would have been fine, but he didn't.
    1
  15. He was firing a firearm while his back was turned. His back being turned means nothing when he does that.
    1
  16.  @earvetta  Why do you say that the Tazer was malfunctioning? It fired when he aimed it at the officer, he just didn't aim it well because he had his back turned at the moment. (If there's something that you want me to look at, I'd gladly read it.) You say that the 2 officers were charged with his death, but a lot of that was due to false allegations made by the district attorney and mob rule of people who try to make everything about race when it isn't about race. I only see one charged for the murder though. And even that person has been rehired by the department and paid back pay. Being charged doesn't mean that they are convicted. When you have a drunk drugged up person who is fighting two officers, stealing their firearm and firing it at both officers, that person is a threat and should be taken down one way or another.
    1
  17.  @earvetta  I don't disagree that he didn't follow policy. That doesn't make him a murderer though. I still don't see where they were both charged for murder though. I do see where Rolfe was charged with murder, but not Brosnan. In either event, he hasn't been found guilty yet.
    1
  18.  @earvetta  I don't really know the specific reason for the policy. My suspicion is that it could be there to protect the officer. People who are on drugs are not necessarily predictable, especially since he wasn't sure which drugs this man was on. You wouldn't want to startle a person on drugs, as they could act unpredictable like this man did. The policy could also be there for the suspects, kind of like how they read you the miranda warning when they arrest you. It may be policy for them to read the miranda warning but it isn't a crime if they don't.
    1
  19. Well, don't fight officers, steal and use their firearm (taser) on them and you should be fine.
    1
  20. Agreed. I don't like their narrative, but this video has very good video shots.
    1
  21. A man who was actively firing a firearm at the officer you mean.
    1
  22. Brooks used deadly force, and was taken out. It's a simple as that.
    1
  23. Yeah, because they fired him without due process.
    1
  24. 1. The officer doesn't know what weapons this man had on him. 2. He 100% had a police issued firearm that he can still use to drive stun the officer with.
    1
  25. He was only willing to walk home after he realized they wanted to test his blood alcohol level. He had also stated that he was absolutely fine to drive. If he really believes that, then if they did let him walk home, perhaps he gets back in the car and drives off once they leave. Also, him walking home would be a horrible idea. He is drunk and he didn't realize where he was. He didn't even know what city or county he was in, and he grew up there... If my son was passed out drunk behind the wheel, I would absolutely want him off the streets. I would hope that he would be put in the drunk tank overnight to protect him and other people. I don't really even see how this is a debate, honestly. I feel that this conversation is only happening because this man lost his life, but that was only because he fired deadly force at the officers.
    1
  26. This wasn't about race. They didn't shoot this man until he fired deadly force at them.
    1
  27. Well, Brooks was far from innocent. He's a violent felon, on probation for 9 years worth of crimes, who fought the officers, stole their taser and used it on the officer, which is considered deadly force. He was then shot. How that man is innocent is beyond me, unless you're referring to another person before this incident took place.
    1
  28. He stole the officer issued firearm (taser) and fired it. The suspect possessed and fired a deadly weapon at the officers.
    1
  29. Not if there was evidence that the perp was also firing a weapon at a person. A person running away implies that they are no longer a threat and are leaving the scene. Actively firing a firearm at the officer makes them a threat still.
    1
  30. Without video evidence, that's hard to say. However, we know that brooks was using deadly force while he was running away, so him being shot in the back doesn't mean anything.
    1
  31. I doubt that would go over well, to put everyone in chokeholds. In hindsight that would be better but there would be a lot of lawsuits, I would think.
    1
  32. I'm pretty sure that he didn't just get drunk while he was in the parking lot. He drove there drunk, the officers have probable cause of this. He also was on drugs, but I don't think the cops knew that at the time.
    1
  33.  @southtxxbox  Are you saying that you believe that he wasn't drunk when he drove there? That he pulled up, got drunk, then got into the drive through line? Most crimes are not observed. The officer doesn't have to witness it. They don't need absolute evidence, only probable cause, which they had.
    1
  34. If a suspect has his back turned while firing a weapon at you, it is justified to defend yourself.
    1
  35. Who are you talking about here? The suspect being scared or the cop who was fought and shot at by the taser?
    1
  36. No, it's not. Not when they use deadly force while running away.
    1
  37. @Meu Deus é Fiel He was also running away when he shot the taser at the officer. Him running away means nothing in that case.
    1
  38. Sure they can, because the suspect had his back turned when he shot the officer's firearm at the officer. His back being turned means nothing when he is fighting while he does it.
    1
  39.  @ThePunisherXX  "he has no weapon" Excepts for the firearm that he stole from the officer, which he already used on one officer and tried to use on the other. He could still use it as a dry stun. If the man didn't want to be shot in the back, he shouldn't be shooting a firearm at the officer while he ran away.
    1
  40. He was a criminal on probation, who is drinking and on drugs to the point of putting others at risk. It isn't as if the cops attacked him. Both sides were respectful of each other until this man started attacking the officers, stole a firearm and tried to incapacitate both officers. He didn't pull over to the side and park, he fell asleep while driving his car. It wouldn't be smart to drive him home in his car, you can't trust a druggy criminal.
    1
  41. If anyone tries to shoot a taser at someone, especially a cop, they should expect to be shot.
    1
  42. Well, he also didn't have a taser before, yet he had that on him. Brooks used deadly force against the officer and was taken down.
    1
  43.  @Zoykzmc  Everything happens so fast, he can't be expected to recall how many times the taser has been shot before he fires back. He also doesn't know if he stole any other weapons. Even then, he could still drive stun the officer. According to Georgia law, a taser in the hands of a criminal is a deadly weapon. The same applies to officers if they are violating the law.
    1
  44.  @Zoykzmc  Still. Don't use deadly force and expect to walk away. He could have still drive stunned the officer or potentially had another weapon.
    1
  45.  @Zoykzmc  Brooks. A taser is considered deadly force when in the hands of a criminal. There's a huge difference between someone who is trained and lawfully using a taser versus someone who is untrained and using it unlawfully.
    1
  46.  @Zoykzmc  I am saying that they are trained in the use of a taser periodically, but I couldn't tell you how extensive that is. Regardless, the part that matters is whether or not it was used lawfully. If it is unlawfully used, it becomes deadly force under the law.
    1
  47.  @Zoykzmc  Someone is shooting a deadly weapon at him, he doesn't get the luxury to take the time to figure out how many times he was shot at, or whether or not the man is going to drive stun him with the taser, which can be done after he depletes the cartridges. The man stole one firearm (taser), perhaps he stole his partner's gun as well. Bottom line. Use deadly force and expect to be taken out.
    1
  48.  @Zoykzmc  I put more than one factor in, and you focus on the one part of it. I don't know if he knew how many shots were fired, but I don't expect him to. If someone fires a taser at the officer, then the officers can lawfully shoot them. "And don't compare the deadlyness of a taser to a gun" Are you talking about how I referred to it as a firearm?
    1
  49.  @Zoykzmc  I am saying that the law considers it to be a deadly weapon in the hands of a criminal. I could care less that a gun is more powerful than a taser. If someone shoots a taser at someone, that person has the right to defend themselves. You don't believe that, and that's your opinion. I don't want to be taseredd, especially if I have a gun that could be taken. I don't want to be drive stunned with the taser, which he could have still done to the officer even after he fired the taser.
    1
  50. No, it was justified. He shot a deadly weapon at the cops and they fired back.
    1