Andy McCarthy: Rule of Law Collapsing

I agree, and have said as much myself; but read his analysis. I do take exception to this line:
Suddenly, Brooks assaulted the police, stole the Taser from one officer and used it on them to help free himself. As he fled, he shot the Taser at the pursuing Rolfe from a little over a yard away, barely missing Rolfe’s head. Rolfe returned fire, striking Rolfe in the back. The police desperately tried to save Brooks with CPR, but he died.
Unless they were able to stop the bleeding from the gunshot wound, I would have phrased that "The police vigorously applied CPR to a gunshot wound patient, significantly contributing to his death." You're just pumping the blood out onto the street at that point.

Did the police know that? Did they have the capacity to stop the bleeding before trying to restart the heart? Was this an attempt to ensure he didn't survive, or an attempt to save him? Those are the sort of questions a trial might well sort out.

However, felony murder (as I've written here before) is an absurd charge, and almost certainly prosecutorial misconduct in this case (and other recent cases). I read it as at minimum an attempt to avoid having to prove the case before a jury by coercing a plea bargain; at worst, an attempt to use the lives of these officers to sway an election, as a kind of blood sacrifice to the demons guiding the mob.


douglas said...

It's a tough spot to be in. If you try to control the bleeding, which you're likely to fail at anyway, it'll look to bystanders that you're not doing much of anything, and they could react negatively, and/or it won't look good on video in the court of public opinion. If you do CPR, that's an obvious attempt to render aid- even if it's not the right course of action in the moment, it may well be better for you later.

ymarsakar said...

You may have forgotten a Ymar world post, Grim, due to Mercury retrograde and the eclipse affecting humanity's emotions and thoughts.

Then again, it could also be somebody switching my timelines around (just kidding).

ymarsakar said...

This is a good direction. It will prevent people from killing people *useless to the Divine Plan*. that's because if the DIvine COunsel just wanted to kill humans, the Earth would be cooked in a solar flash already. They don't need us to help them kill humans, they can kill most of all you pretty easily, even without a DIvine Flood.

The DIvine Plan requires other things to work, and Q is using doubled Deep State assets.

The Rule of the Cabal has to collapse, Grim, before the New Age or new order can be instituted. But the question is... who will be the rulers?

J Melcher said...

The criticism of officers for using CPR assumes the accuracy and honesty of the journalist offering his narrative. I'm not quite ready to assume that. I can easily imagine witnesses and participants describing police reactions using terms like "first aid" and the treatments getting revised in the telling.

I was interviewed about school demographics and commented about my doubts on the projected "explosive" growth. The published interview revised the adjective to "exponential growth". As a numbers nerd, I found the substitution offensive. The journalist claimed he couldn't see what difference it made. Even aside from distinctions in math -- maybe quoting a source accurately is important? But maybe not.

Grim said...

Sorry, Ymar. It’s up now.

Aggie said...

Curiously absent in both the Floyd and Brooks cases, is what was actually happening in the events-leading-up-to, and also what would have happened, procedurally, next. Brooks was on probation, I've read. He was intoxicated in public and DUI (behind the wheel, passed out was what I read). If he was brought in, what would the booking desk have found out? That he was on probation? Would he have been booked, jailed, and then sent back in for violating it? Would that realization influence Brooks' actions with the arresting officer?

Grim said...

I imagine they knew it already from running his plates or ID. He surely knew it if he was sober enough to process.

bdoran said...

When people risk their lives you either back them or you don’t.
Above is don’t.

Grim said...

Turns out that the biggest risk to their lives was the prosecution. If they die it won’t because of the street, but because of the court.

ymarsakar said...

The biggest threat to me was the organized police and systems like the totalitarian government forces.

The KKK was the paramilitary arm of the southern slave aristos or the system they valued, the Service to Self Satanic style version.

Nathan BF was the Service to Other version of the KKK and Southern aristos.

WHILE I could always find solutions to disorganized mobs and what not, countering the armed and systemic forces of Ruby Ridge snipers, Waco 1, and Waco 2 was a lot more problematic.

Which is why I find it hard to understand why supposed "veterans" like Flynn or other combat whatevers, keep mouthing off to the FBI. Don't they know what can happen?

Guess not.

ymarsakar said...

This is also why I don't like carrying around open weapons. While it can be a good deterrence, It is unnecessary. And in a CQB situation, one can easily be "disarmed" or some such.

If tazer is lethal force, then the police is threatening to use lethal force on citizens and Americans or foreigners, ALL The Time.

Doesn't this cause totalitarian combat stress on both sides? Yes, which is intentional.

Then there's that incident where a newly graduated LEO shot some guy with a gun instead of a tazer. Same muscle memory... oops.

The American gun culture believes that if they don't have a gun, they are defenseless. Actually, so long as the enemy has a gun, I have a gun, so long as I am in my range and they cannot use their range as well. Because we get to loot the target after it is down.