Vort

I do not. Did I mention that I'm the product of American public education?

Actually, I agree with this. My previous point was that the corrupt DA seeking reelection wants the taser classified as a deadly weapon when a cop uses it on an uncooperative and threatening suspect, but then TWO WEEKS LATER wants the taser classified as non-deadly when a perpetrator steals one and tries to use it against a cop. Whichever side the cop is on, you can bet that Paul Howard stands firmly on the other. Unless, I assume, the perpetrators are attempting to defile Paul Howard's house. Then he probably stands with the police, at least until the threat is past and he can once more take the police to task for not doing their jobs adequately. Such people have earned the absolute right to live in the anarchy they so desperately desire. Just don't take me or mine with you.

Is there any zeroeth condition that the person must actually be guilty of wrongdoing? Or is getting a conviction that someone thinks is in the public interest the only real consideration? Sincere question. Because it sounds like actual wrongdoing is in many instances not even seriously considered as a criterion.

Yeah. I though Australia was in South America, which is a part of Texas. -Signed, A Proud Product of American Public Education

https://www.foxnews.com/us/harvard-grad-blames-trump-supporters-after-stab-video-costs-her-deloitte-job?fbclid=IwAR2aGjNr6ynLyTOq3eSDGL_kaBy_yoSzPQ4kUUfAs6wAcKzZi_UAb4NYo-0

Here it is. I believe I copied this from a @mirkwood post on this forum. I have lightly edited it, formatting it into paragraphs for clarity. The DA, Paul Howard, seems to be a piece of work. Statement from former APD Officer Garrett Rolfe's new criminal defense team I’ve been prosecuting or defending Georgians in the criminal justice system for 25 years. But never in my career have I seen a District Attorney act so unethically without regard for his professional obligations in pursuit of reelection. Twice in the past few weeks Paul Howard has put his own ambitions ahead of the good of his constituents as he seeks to capitalize on a series of national tragedies. Under Georgia’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, Paul Howard is prohibited from making “extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” In fact, he is only permitted to inform the “pubic of the nature and extent” of his actions “that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” He has violated that rule today and also made blatant false statements. He has also acted rashly, before the official investigation has been completed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). Had Paul Howard waited for the GBI to complete its investigation he would have learned that while Rayshard Brooks’ death was tragic, Officer Garrett Rolfe’s actions were justified under Georgia law and that there is no legal basis to charge him with 11 felonies. On June 12, 2020, Officer Brosnan responded to a call that a person was passed out in a car at a Wendy’s. Suspecting that the driver, Rayshard Brooks, was drunk, Officer Brosnan requested the assistance of an officer with specialized training in conducting DUI investigations: Officer Rolfe. The DUI investigation that followed was routine, and at the end of it, Officer Rolfe determined that he had probable cause to arrest Mr. Brooks. No one is disputing that probable cause existed for Mr. Brooks’ arrest. And there is no argument that Officer Rolfe was anything other than courteous to Mr. Brooks over the course of their encounter. There is also no dispute that, up until the moment of his arrest, Mr. Brooks, too, was polite and cooperative. Suddenly, something changed. Mr. Brooks began to struggle with, and attack, both Officer Brosnan and Officer Rolfe. Under Georgia law, Mr. Brooks’ forceful resistance to arrest, and his attack on the officers, constituted felony obstruction. All Georgia citizens, including police officers, are entitled to use force to defend themselves from forcible felonies. Over the course of the encounter, Officers Brosnan and Rolfe attempted to use the least amount of force necessary to end the encounter and ensure their safety, while Mr. Brooks continued to escalate, until he at last he punched Officer Rolfe in the face, a second felony. Then, Mr. Brooks took Officer Brosnan’s TASER, a third felony. A TASER is an offensive weapon under Georgia law and has been declared to be a deadly weapon by Paul Howard; in fact, one of his investigators swore that a TASER is a deadly weapon before the Honorable Belinda Edwards on June 2, 2020. One video shows Mr. Brooks pointing the TASER at Officer Brosnan’s head, and Officer Brosnan’s lawyer stated that Mr. Brooks shot Officer Brosnan with the TASER, a fourth felony. At that point, Officer Rolfe deployed his TASER, but it had no effect. Mr. Brooks began running through the parking lot armed with Officer Brosnan’s TASER. But he wanted to deter pursuit. So instead of continuing to run, he paused, reached back, pointed, and fired what we now know was Officer Brosnan’s TASER at Officer Rolfe; this was an additional aggravated assault, a fifth felony. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him, and so he did what any officer in that situation would do: He dropped his TASER, pulled his gun, and fired it at Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks fell to the ground, Officer Rolfe gathered himself, and then he immediately called for EMS and began life-saving measures. That Officer Rolfe was justified is clear under Georgia law. A police officer may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that 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. When Mr. Brooks chose to attack two officers, to disarm one of them, and to point and fire a deadly weapon at Officer Rolfe, he took their lives, and his own, into his hands. He took the risk that their justified response might be a deadly one. Nobody is here to applaud the death of Mr. Brooks. He was a father, he was a member of his community, and his death was a tragedy. But not every tragedy is a crime. Time and again in this country, we have used tragic deaths to push for new and harsher prosecutions and for less empathy for the accused. But following every sad event with yet another prosecution isn’t an end to this cycle— it is simply another aspect of its continuation. Although we can all understand the grief of Mr. Brooks’ family, Officer Rolfe’s actions were justified by the law. But Paul Howard’s choice to charge him is justified only by his hopes to improve his performance against Fani Willis in the upcoming runoff election. I will be joined by Bill Thomas of the W.H. Thomas Firm in defending Garrett Rolfe in reference to the criminal charges and we will announce the rest of our team at a later date. Noah H. Pines Ross & Pines, LLC

In the US, if it can be shown you were acting in self-defense, the DA would never even charge you with homicide. It would never go to court. I suppose that's an illustration of the difference in attitude between Europeans and Americans.

Absolutely. Watch the video I linked to. An officer cannot tell whether someone is armed (or, for that matter, whether another officer's taser is discharged and thus ineffective). When a cop is attacked, he has the inherent right to defend himself. If he has legitimate reason to believe his life is in danger—and yes, it's possible to be beaten to death—he has every right to defend himself with deadly force, just like you or me. (Well, just like me. Not sure what UK laws on self-defense allow. Maybe Brits are required to absorb a blade or lead slug to the gut before they can legally exercise any self-defense.)* *The parenthetical comment was meant mostly tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not. Europeans have a much different perspective on things such as acceptable self-defense than do Americans.

FTR, I removed Point #3 because it came across as snarky and insulting, when I meant it to be, well, snarky and jovial.

I think that @Jamie123's* post can be classified as a variation on the extremely common theme I hear all the time from Europeans, which goes something like this: "Americans should be less American and more like us Europeans." Needless to say, and even as a self-proclaimed Europhile, I heartily disagree. *For the record, in case anyone doesn't already know this, I'm very fond of Jamie123**. I value his participation on this forum and enjoy hearing his opinions and insights. Just in case anyone thought I had something personal against Jamie, nothing could be further from the truth. **I keep misspelling "Jamie" as "Jaime", a fairly common Hispanic given name. If I do so at any point in the future, just assume I'm using the Spanish version of his name to give my post some Spanish flair***. ***As opposed to "Spanish flare", which would involve habañeros.

1. The ACLU, which skews pretty hard to the left, disagrees with your assessment about the lethality of a taser. 2. In a previous case involving a charge of police brutality, a Georgia DA argued that, under Georgia state law, a taser is a lethal weapon. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 3. I realize your comparison of a taser's lethal potential to that of a "broken water pistol" was hyperbole, but in this case it's particularly unhelpful hyperbole. 4. This was not a "Judge Dredd-style execution". The cop did not stand over the downed perpetrator and put a bullet in his skull. He fired on a perpetrator who was pointing a stolen police weapon at him. 5. Second-guessing what a cop "should have done" is a fun game to play, especially for those who hate cops. It's a completely different game when you're the one being shot at and absorbing the punches.

So you think Carb is a lying drama queen? I assume you do not think that, but I don't understand what else your post could mean.

The blood of the murder victims is on the hands of the mayor, the police chief, and for that matter the governor, not legally but morally. I hope Washingtonians remember this come election time. Time for Jay Inslee to walk shamefully off into the disgrace of his political career's sunset.

You would think. Except this is Seattle... It may not budge the needle in Seattle proper, but I have some hope that the less densely populated areas of the state will be, well, less dense.

I'm not a Utahn. But yes, I would go to the family reunion, and take all my children who wanted to go.