So what exactly is your point?I didn't try and justify anything of the sort. But then again I consider the source, you. You only want to demonize me as a racist for some reason.
Did you not see where I said I would not have shot him. I am only pointing out the conflicting messages from the obviously biased DA. Sorry you can't follow along with the conversation.
I agree that the DA is fucked up. He can't claim deadly weapon on one case and then two weeks later say it isn't a deadly weapon.
Georgia Ga. Code
(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term “firearm” shall include stunguns and tasers. A stungun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.
and
(7) Deadly Weapon. A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, a pistol, rifle, or shotgun; or a switch-blade knife, gravity knife, stiletto, sword, or dagger; or any billy, black-jack, bludgeon, or metal knuckles.
Nope, he was wrong. Do you believe under GA law it is a deadly weapon? He seems to be up on the facts now are you?
Use some logic. GA law enforcement academy students are all tased as part of their training. Could they get insurance if there was a risk to healthy individuals?
So what was your point?
That is wrong so sorry!! Or it is outdated...I didn't try and justify anything of the sort. But then again I consider the source, you. You only want to demonize me as a racist for some reason.
Did you not see where I said I would not have shot him. I am only pointing out the conflicting messages from the obviously biased DA. Sorry you can't follow along with the conversation.
I agree that the DA is fucked up. He can't claim deadly weapon on one case and then two weeks later say it isn't a deadly weapon.
Georgia Ga. Code
(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term “firearm” shall include stunguns and tasers. A stungun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.
and
(7) Deadly Weapon. A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, a pistol, rifle, or shotgun; or a switch-blade knife, gravity knife, stiletto, sword, or dagger; or any billy, black-jack, bludgeon, or metal knuckles.
I think you are blowing smoke out your ass....This is his job, he should have known the law two weeks ago also.
I agree the man is an idiot and should be removed from his job as District Attorney.
So what exactly is your point?
That is wrong so sorry!! Or it is outdated...
So while the fact that a Taser may not be regarded as a "deadly weapon" in Georgia would certainly undercut any argument by the shooter that he had reason to fear serious bodily injury from its use, the same would probably be true if Brooks had a small knife but was far enough away that he did not pose a significant risk to the officer.
While it is possible for a Taser to cause serious injury or even death, such consequences are very rare. Indeed, says Banzhaf, some police departments require new officers to be shot with a Taser themselves so that they will know what it feels like, and the effect it is likely to have on a suspect. TV reporters have also demonstrated its effects by being short with it on air.
I think you are blowing smoke out your ass....
Ok great, so we agree he was wrong? We should replace him and proceed with the charges? Is that your point?This is his job, he should have known the law two weeks ago also.
I agree the man is an idiot and should be removed from his job as District Attorney.
Who is confused. They are not lethal weapons no matter what some random person says. 99.999999999999999999% of people are not confused and know they are not. There was one guy in this thread but he disappeared.
As far as I can tell that issue was settled. Anyone else here confused?
Depends, especially if it is a means to get their more-lethal firearm. That isn't what was happening here so it's definitely not justified in hindsight. The law usually only considers what seemed reasonable for self-preservation in the moment, so we will see.so shooting a cop with a taser isnt considered attempted murder by law?
Clearly not on its own. That would clearly just be some variant of assault barring some incredibly dubious effort by a prosecutor. (Maybe an effort to keep successfully shocking a police offer with a taser enough times in a row could possibly bring such a charge, but that clearly does not apply here.)so shooting a cop with a taser isnt considered attempted murder by law?
I would like to see your sources here because I think you're just mistaken.Depends, especially if it is a means to get their more-lethal firearm. That isn't what was happening here so it's definitely not justified in hindsight. The law usually only considers what seemed reasonable for self-preservation in the moment, so we will see.
The cop is the defendant in the scenario I was discussing, hence "we will see."I would like to see your sources here because I think you're just mistaken.
Even if the assailant tried to grab a cop's gun (before then I don't think such a charge could apply at all barring the exception above or some highly unusual circumstance), I am actually somewhat skeptical of the ability of a prosecutor to at least successfully go after the assailant for murder given the question of what the assailant would do with it. Basically the obvious claim by the defendant would be they were merely going to threaten the cop and get them to leave them alone while they escaped, and they could even try to claim they merely were fearful that the cop would shoot and intended to take that option away from the cop but not use the gun at all.
A prosecutor would seem to need something like incriminating testimony from the defendant or the like to actually succeed with such a charge, with another issue being how clear it is to the jury that the defendant was actually trying to grab the cop's gun if they didn't succeed in the first place.
I was talking about a hypothetical case where the person firing the taser was the defendant.The cop is the defendant.
They will consider if it was reasonable for him to think he should defend himself with deadly force in the moment where he was forced to make a split second decision. Was he justifiably fearful for his life without the benefit of calculated hindsight (missed, no more taser shots, backup present, etc)?
Right, but the statement you were challenging was about the cop as the defendant, hence where I said "we will see" along with that statement.I was talking about a hypothetical case where the person firing the taser was the defendant.
In this case the evidence appears very clear with the only question being what level of criminal charge is appropriate for the cop.
Even if the suspect still had a functional taser with ammo or the cop believed this, both cops had guns and could have shot the suspect if he tried to charge them or grab one of their guns. For that matter, the taser would simply not do anything if it hit the cop body armor or for example missed. If the cop was concerned about his safety at that point he should have been trying to back away from the suspect under those circumstances and obviously didn't have any valid justification for shooting when he specifically did.
I guess I think that especially since they were both fully trained cops this is not a plausible defense. (In fact this is one area where being a copy if anything should make the case more straightforward than it it was someone else.) They clearly had options and the suspect had yet done something like try to charge either of them which might arguably make this a more debatable case. (Barring the exact debate regarding exactly what charge the cop who fired his gun should be convicted of.)The "both cops had guns" thing is the kind of carefully considered hindsight I was talking about which may be considered irrelevant based on what they think is reasonable.
I pointed out much earlier that many departments classify them as "less-lethal" as opposed to some who classify them as "non-lethal" or "less-than-lethal." It's been obvious from the start that there is no clear universal classification, which I why I mentioned this so early on. It seems people dug in their heels anyway.
Oh well.
I guess it is above your head if you can't see from my post.
There are several points:
Felony Murder is a severe over charge in this case.
I don't think the police should have shot Mr. Brooks.
The District Attorney in Fulton County is a biased moron.
The district attorney is guilty of confusing statements on the law for tasers.
Georgia laws need some attention as a projectile taser is considered a firearm and a firearm is considered a deadly weapon.
What is your point?
We know guns are a deadly weapon. If tasers are as well why do cops have them?You missed the point of my post.
DA says June 2 that it is deadly weapon, now all of a sudden it isn't.
So the Fulton County ( Atlanta ) District Attorney is now a "Random Person. Did you not watch the video of the DA saying that the taser was a deadly weapon?
To quote the Fulton County District Attorney: "Under Georgia Law the taser is considered a deadly weapon."
From my second link in Georgia non-contact projectile tasers are classed as a Firearm.
Your opinion doesn't matter, the laws in other states doesn't matter. What matters is the law in Georgia and I think the DA of Fulton County should be consistent.
Ok great, so we agree he was wrong? We should replace him and proceed with the charges? Is that your point?
We know guns are a deadly weapon. If tasers are as well why do cops have them?
So now that PC is up to speed and we have reestablished that tasers are not dealy weapons for the umpteenth time.
Paul Howard showed a very compelling case in his briefing. Anyone want to try and poke holes in it?
Quote
Yes I have and stop diverting.You haven't established anything for the state of Georgia. That is what you believe and that is fine.
The DA (Paul Howard) in Georgia doesn't even have a consistent answer. He changes his mind every two weeks. He is a moron and biased as hell. There is no way this is a felony murder.