But the DA says that Brooks was courteous and cooperative, so how could this be possible?
he was politely talking to the officers about visiting his mother.
or something
> But the DA says that Brooks was courteous and cooperative, so how could this be possible? <
It’s easy if you snip out the parts that don’t fit your narrative.
Here’s an example. I was listening to a local (white) radio talk show host yesterday. And here’s what he said about the Brooks shooting. I think I’ve got it almost word-for-word:
“The police found Mr. Brooks asleep in his car. Mr. Brooks failed a field sobriety test, and so he was arrested. Things went south from there. One of the cops shot and killed Mr. Brooks.”
(I found that amazing. And sickening. No mention of any struggle. No mention of any taser.)
This tends to put an entirely different perspective on the events and how things proceeded. Will any of this ever be taken into account?
Verdict of “Not Proven” is apparently not part of the jurisprudence.
“Saint” Rayschard is not yet ready for canonization.
He was courteous and cooperative so that he could get close enough to grab the officer’s weapon.
A career criminal, Rayshard Brooks used deception to get the upper hand.
“But the DA says that Brooks was courteous and cooperative, so how could this be possible?”
The DA forgot to mention Brooks was also trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, kind, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent!