billsfan1959

The officers are in crowd control formation and moving toward an area. It doesn't matter if they have encountered a crowd yet or not. And, whether there was a crowd at that point or not has no bearing on why they pushed the man. They pushed him because he placed himself in a position to be considered a threat. You might want to watch the video again. Not only did he reach his right hand toward the officer's belt, he did it twice. It doesn't matter if he had a cell phone in his hand or not. If you approach an officer, in any situation, much less this one, and get within 1-2 feet of him and reach your hand toward his belt, regardless of what you have in your hand, you will get the same response. As you should. When in the world did it ever become all right for a person to walk up to within 1-2 feet of an officer and reach toward that officer for any reason? He initiated it. He engaged in actions that resulted in him being pushed back. He stumbled and fell. As I said before, had he not stumbled and fallen and persisted, he would have been arrested as well. And no, officers in that situation do not have the luxury of taking the time to assess whether or not the man poses a real threat or not. Once he placed himself that close to officers and reached his hand in the direction of an officer's belt, he has to be assumed to be a risk. I won't bother to post situations in which police officers have been injured and killed because they didn't assume somebody getting that close to them posed a threat. I somehow don't think it would really matter to you. You are welcome to your opinion.

Hey, Alf, I wanted to reply, so, here are my thoughts from a little different perspective: The officers interacted with Brooks for a considerable amount of time prior to their attempt to arrest him. They were courteous, respectful, and completely professional the entire interaction. When they attempted to arrest Brooks, he chose, in that moment, to resist arrest and fight with the police. The officers did nothing whatsoever to provoke it. Once Brooks began fighting with the officers, particularly once all three were on the ground, there are only two thoughts going through the officer's minds: (1) Subduing Brooks and (2) survival - and they go hand in hand. However, they are responding as they are trained and, even in the midst of the fight, they are still giving commands and engaging in the least amount of force they can to subdue him. At one point, Officer Brosnan is on his back, Brooks has taken his taser away, and Brooks punches Officer Rolfe in the side of the face as Brooks gets to his feet. Officer Rolfe gets to his feet and draws his taser. Keep in mind, Officer Rolfe would have been completely justified in drawing his handgun at this point; however, he chooses the lesser amount of force and draws his taser. Brooks then runs and Officer Rolfe pursues him as Officer Brosnan is still on the ground. Now this is where, for some, such as you, it appears to be an instance of an officer who simply shoots an unarmed man in the back when he could have just let him go. For me, it is much more of a gray area. From the moment Brooks takes off running until the shots are fired is less than 6 seconds. Officer Brosnan is still on the ground as the pursuit begins and Officer Rolfe has no idea if his partner is incapacitated as he pursues Brooks. Now, you might think the wisest course of action at this point is to just let Brooks go. However, Brooks has already shown a propensity for violence against the officers, is now considered a threat to the officers and anyone he encounters, and Officer Rolfe follows both training and policy in his pursuit of Brooks. He is absolutely right to do so. They are within 10 feet or so and Officer Rolfe is still issuing commands and has not drawn his handgun. As Officer Rolfe closes the distance between he and Brooks, Brooks clearly turns, raises his arm and fires the taser. Now, Officer Rolfe, to this point, has acted completely according to his training, according to policy, and has continually chosen the least severe amount of force available to him. It was only after Brooks raised his arm and fired the taser that Officer Rolfe drew his weapon and fired. We all have the benefit of knowing the entirety of the situation; however, we do not know what Officer Rolfe knew or believed in that moment. 1) When Brooks fired the taser, he showed a willingness to escalate the violence to another level. Did this now make him an even more dangerous threat to the officer and anyone he might encounter? 2) Did Officer Rolfe believe at this point that his partner was down and if Brooks hit him with the taser then they would both be down and at the mercy of someone who had already shown a willingness to be aggressive and escalate the violence? 3) Did he know that Rolfe was armed only with a taser? Could he have believed, in the nightime, when he sees Brooks raise his arm, sees a flash, and hears a loud noise (all present on the video) that maybe Brooks had also taken his partner's handgun? I have many more questions; however I will leave it at that. I had no problem condemning the actions of Officer Chauvin in George Floyd's death, jut as I have had no problem holding Officers accountable for the unjustified use of force in other instances. This instance is much more of a gray area for me. This was not a simple instance of an officer shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect. As a general rule, I am not in favor of shooting fleeing suspects unless the Officer can articulate an imminent threat to himself/herself or others. I cannot reach a definitive conclusion regarding Officer Rolfe's actions without knowing his thoughts on what happened. However, given that he continually stayed within his training and policy, and continually chose the least amount of force until the very moment Brooks raised his arm and fired that taser, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I hear all of the facts. I do know this: Rayshard Brooks was 100% responsible for creating the circumstances in which he died. It doesn't mean he deserved to die; however, he would be alive and unharmed if he just complied with the officers.

Police are funded as a city entity, not a community entity. The police determine how their resources are spread throughout the communities within the cities. The black communities within the cities tend to have a disproportionate amount of violent crime. The police, in turn, need to devote a disproportionate amount of their resources to those areas. See how it works?

My apologies for my harsh response. I know you are always open to discussion and it was unnecessary. I don’t have the time at the moment; however, I do want to reply - and will.

I agree, he did overcharge and there is no doubt it was political. I am never a fan of actions in the legal system being driven by emotion and external influences.

I don’t think you have the first clue about their line of work...

Do you actually engage in any type of activities in which you try to acquire any knowledge? I only ask because your posts appear to lack even a basic understanding of the issues you address.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat“ - Theodore Roosevelt

I'm sorry; however, I have no idea how you can extrapolate the comments Atwater made almost forty years ago into the existence of a currently similar oppressive system fueld by the same thinking. I don't believe the current government system, in that regard, is anything close to what it was 40-50 years ago. I believe a history of racism created barriers to equal opportunities for black citizens for most of this country's existence. I believe racism still exists in this country. I believe the racism of today is not the racism in the time of Atwater, in the time of Martin Luther King, Jr, or in any time gong back throughout the history of this country. I believe progress is steadily being made and that more "real progress" has been made in the last 30 -40 years than in all of the time before that. I believe the opportunities for blacks, on an individual basis, are greater than they have ever been. I believe the opportunties of black communities to rise out of poverty, unemployment, and high levels of violent crime are as bleak as they have ever been. Why the disparity between the two? Why can blacks in this country, as individuals, rise to any level they aspire, even the Presidency of the United States, arguably the most powerful position in all of the world; yet, black communities remain disproportionately plagued by poverty, unemployment, crime, and lack of hope for improvement. I would argue it is because of ill designed and inadequately implemented solutions that were well meaning but, ultimately harmful. I would argue it is because black communities have been, and continue to be, used as pawns by politicians on both sides and so called "black leaders" as they vie for power. I would argue that it is because we have blurred the distinction between legitimate criticism of blacks within those communities with racism, to such a degree, that that there is no longer a distinction between the two, and legitimate criticism is no longer allowed. I would argue that the violent crime environment within black communities has led to almost "open warfare" between black males within the communities and between black males and the police. I beleive the hostility between law enforcement and black males is less about systemic racism than it is is about a sub culture that has been allowed to take hold and thrive within these communities at the expense of all the decent people that live there,. I could continue to argue more reasons, because there are so many and they are so intertwined. My point is, that none of my arguments are to deny the existence of racism. It is an argument against the idea of the pervasive, level of systemic racism, advanced by so many at the moment, as the primary problem. There is enough culpability and responsibility to go around for everyone involved. It is time for the extreme voices to be silenced and the reasonable voices to come to the table.

Here are some additional factors to add a little more context The police are formed up as a unit for the purpose of crowd control and moving protesters away from a specific area. To do this they have to work together as a group. Moving a crowd always has the potential for escalation, even peaceful crowds. Emotions run high and sometimes there is resistance. This didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened on the heels of 5 days of protests where many "peaceful" protests had isolated violent behaviors and other peaceful protests turned violent on a larger scale. The man approached the officers and clearly reached his right hand toward an officer's belt. It was at this point that the man was pushed back (after several orders to get back). It is an immediate and appropriate response. It was not disproportionate to the man's actions and certainly did not appear to be done with an intent to harm. He stumbled backward and fell awkwardly. Had he not fallen and continued to engage the officers, he would have been arrested as was the case with the other protester. Operation Plans always have contingencies for medical response and, as soon as the man went down, an officer immediately got on his radio. Within 15 seconds a medic was attending to the man. Even in a "normal" situation, that man would have been pushed back after getting within several feet of an officer and reaching for the officer's belt area. You can go on all you like about the man's age. Officers simply cannot assume everyone who approaches them has peacful intent or no ability to cause harm, particularly in the atmosphere in which this took place. They simply do not have that luxury. I hate that the man was injured and it was extremely unfortunate. However, there was no behavior on the part of any officer that was outside of protocol, that would indicate intent to injure the man, or that a reasonable person could foresee would result in serious injury. There are instances where police need to be held accountable for unjustified use of force. This is not one of them.

I like to consider myself a well educated, thoughtful, and reasonable human being. I enjoy engaging in honest intellectual dialogue with others who are willing to be open to views other than their own that are founded in knowledge and thoughtfully articulated. This is not an invitation to an honest debate on racism, which does exist in our society. This is a lecture and a link to one video that you somehow believe constitutes the ENTIRE TRUTH to an incredibly complex issue. This post is the kind of simple, dichotomous, blame-centered thinking that is one of the primary barriers to finding solutions to complex problems. It is also reads as a condescending, broad brush stroke condemnation of a group of people represented as morally and intellectually inferior (see bolded). If you wish to engage in honest debate, you really shouldn't begin by saying "any intelligent being" would have to reach your conclusion. If you want to share your experiences and thoughts and ask others to share their experiences and thoughts, that might be a good way to start a dialogue.

At this point, who isn't capitulating to the mob about "police brutality"?

FIFY....

Back at ya

Ha! I forgot, I do have a Linkedin account that I have connected with a lot of people in my field of interest. I never post anything and rarely read other posts. my communications with others are strictly through messaging, which consists primarily of business related messages or congratulatory/how are you doing kinds of messages.

I won't disagree. Unfortunately, the extreme position is the main voice right now and drowning out all of the reasonable voices. No honest dialogue will begin until that ends.

It goes both ways, NB. People should also not begin the conversation by placing others in a position where they feel they have to defend themselves.

Actually, I believe it is a new definition of ignoring, which now includes legitimate disagreement

Actually, we are dealing with psychological pain, NB, whatever you choose to wrap it up in. As for your analogy of your angry wife, you can acknowledge her anger or pain, you can aknowledge the legitimacy of what she feels, you can listen to her as she tells you what she is feeling; however, it doesn't necessarily mean the reason(s) she is angry or in pain are entirely legitimate. If you both want the relationship to work, then, at some point, that has to be discussed honestly. As to your bolded: (1) I agree that we must listen. However, one does not have to have experience in in a particular area, or completely agree after listening for his/her thoughts on solutions to be useful. (2) Would you also say unless you are a law enforcement officer in America today, your thoughts on solutions are useless until you first listen to them?

I don't have a Facebook account, a Twitter Account, an Instagram account, or any other social media account. The only place I post my thoughts on political issues is on this forum and, to be honest, I only posted on PPP a handful of times before the lockdown - I only posted Bills related thoughts on the Stadium Wall. When it comes to politics, I read a lot, I have discussions with my wife, other family members, and close friends; however, I do not post my thoughts online anywhere but here. I kind of feel, outside of a few posters, posting here is like having discussions with family members as almost all of us have a common bond in the Bills. I don't have the time nor the inclination to engage on any other forms of social media.

He doesn't bother with distinctions between such concepts as fact and opinion, truth and lies, external reality and internal reality, etc. If it validates his deluded points of view, he will cling to it like a life preserver...

Actually, if you are trying to truly help a family member in real psychological pain, you can only do it through discussion of the root causes of that pain in therapeutic alliances with all affected family members, where the feelings are explored with empathy, honesty, positive validations, and without blame. Healing doesn't occur by dismissing the feelings and thoughts of all other family members, nor does it occur when the process begins with the premise that the family member in pain is disliked by all other family members to the degree that they would do anything to keep him/her in pain.

I understand why the Mayor did it. However, those kinds of decisions, and certainly any decisions within the legal process should never be dictated by emotion and social pressure.

I saw that. The Mayor stepped in and demanded the officer be terminated before any real investigation even began... I guess the whole concept of the presumption of innocence has, in regard to the police, been replaced with the presumption of evil and racist intent....

So, it was either a restatement by her of what she had previously said, or just a reprint of what she had previously said. Thanks for the clarification...