Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Black Georgia sheriff says shooting of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta police was 'completely justified

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sheriff-alfonzo-williams-rayshard-brooks-shooting-justified

 

Burke County, Ga. Sheriff Alfonzo Williams argued Tuesday that Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe was "completely justified" in using lethal force against 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks, whose death has sparked a new round of protests and controversy over policing and racial discrimination in the U.S.

 

Brooks was shot as he attempted to flee Rolfe and another officer, Devin Brosnan, who had attempted to arrest Brooks after he failed a sobriety test. Brooks had stolen one of the officers' Taser and attempted to fire it in Rolfe's direction as he ran.

"This is the third law enforcement agency I’ve been head of," Williams, who is black, told CNN. "Every agency I’ve gone to, I’ve required every officer who carries a Taser to be Tased with it, so that you understand the incapacitation."

 

========================================================

Another link..

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-shooting-tuesday/index.html

 

A black sheriff says the police shooting of Rayshard Brooks was 'justified.' Atlanta's mayor and protesters disagree

 

Black sheriff defends officer's use of force in Brooks' killing 04:11

(CNN)One day before charges could be filed against the ex-officer who killed Rayshard Brooks, a black Georgia sheriff said the shooting was justified.

Brooks, 27, was killed by an Atlanta police officer Friday night outside a Wendy's restaurant after failing a sobriety test, taking an officer's Taser and running away.
That officer, Garrett Rolfe, was fired after footage showed him shooting at Brooks multiple times from the back as Brooks ran. A second officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, has been placed on administrative duty.
The Atlanta police chief promptly resigned. The mayor called the killing of the black man a "murder."
 
 
Content by CNN Underscored
The comfiest pants for lounging around the house
With the anxiety and distress you may be feeling, wearing clothes that are in any way uncomfortable is simply not an option.
 
But Burke County Sheriff Alfonzo Williams said Rolfe's actions were "completely justified."
"We saw in the video that Brooks is engaged in a fight with the officers," said Williams, whose county is about 160 miles east of Atlanta.
"Brooks is able to take a non-lethal weapon, a Taser, away from one of the officers, and he flees," Williams said Tuesday. "Brooks turned back to the officers and fired the Taser."
Footage shows the deployed Taser apparently missed the officers.
Williams said Brooks' use of the device was extremely dangerous because it could have immobilized the officer for several seconds, possibly allowing Brooks to steal the officer's gun or seriously injure him.
"If an officer is hit with that Taser, all of his muscles will be locked up, and he'll have the inability to move and to respond," Williams said.
"This was a completely justified shooting."
Law enforcement analyst disagrees
Footage shows that early in the encounter, an officer asked Brooks whether he could pat him down, and Brooks agreed.
"Now you know he's not in possession of a firearm or any other deadly weapon," CNN law enforcement analyst Charles Ramsey said.
After Brooks stole the officer's Taser, ran away and apparently fired it toward police from a distance, it's very unlikely he'd be able to deploy it a second time, Ramsey said.
"Once you fire the Taser, it has to recycle before it can be used again," said Ramsey, a former Philadelphia police commissioner. "I would doubt very seriously if most citizens would even know how to operate a Taser."
So instead of shooting Brooks, Ramsey said the officer could have continued the foot pursuit and used his radio to call for backup. He noted that Brooks' car was still in the parking lot of the Wendy's.
"You've got the car. You've asked for his driver's license. You know who he is. So even if you don't get him right now, you can get him later," Ramsey said.
 
========================================================
 
 
Honored Social Butterfly

Just checking in.  Has the Regressive movement found a second person of color who believes the shooting was justified or is it still just the one? 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

Just checking in.  Has the Regressive movement found a second person of color who believes the shooting was justified or is it still just the one? 


ROFLMAO !!!!

 


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
354 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Trump World never deals with facts..

  • Police Officers are taught that a suspect running away from you is NOT a threat to your life.
  • Police Officers are taught you never fire at someone if there are innocent people behind the suspect who are subject to being seriously injured or killed from a stray bullet.
  • In this case, the officer is fortunate one of his stray bullets hit a car instead of a person.
0 Kudos
374 Views
9
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

If a policeman sees you pointing a possibly lethal weapon against you (even a knife), expect him to aim his gun at your torso and fire his weapon.  Don't threaten a policeman with his life and you will be saved!

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

If a policeman sees you pointing a possibly lethal weapon against you (even a knife), expect him to aim his gun at your torso and fire his weapon.  Don't threaten a policeman with his life and you will be saved!


An irresponsible cop may be threatened by almost anything but a responsible and moral police officer would not feel that his life is threatened by a man running away after firing a taser. But then a racist cop seeing a black man running away ......


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
412 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:


An irresponsible cop may be threatened by almost anything but a responsible and moral police officer would not feel that his life is threatened by a man running away after firing a taser. But then a racist cop seeing a black man running away ......


Apparently you have never had anyone firing a weapon, or apparent weapon, at you.  A person never knows what they would do in a situation like that.  Even someone running away from you firing a weapon can be as deadly as someone running towards you.

 

It's easy to judge situations while sitting behind a computer.

 

Did Brooks make a rational decision by attempting to grab the officer's weapon and then running away while firing the taser?

0 Kudos
322 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

 


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


An irresponsible cop may be threatened by almost anything but a responsible and moral police officer would not feel that his life is threatened by a man running away after firing a taser. But then a racist cop seeing a black man running away ......


Apparently you have never had anyone firing a weapon, or apparent weapon, at you.  A person never knows what they would do in a situation like that.  Even someone running away from you firing a weapon can be as deadly as someone running towards you.

 

It's easy to judge situations while sitting behind a computer.

 

Did Brooks make a rational decision by attempting to grab the officer's weapon and then running away while firing the taser?


He was not "firing a weapon" at the cop that shot him. He had already fired his taser at the other officer,   PRIOR  to the officer shooting him in the back running away You keep trying to claim that the cop shot and killed him while he was firing his weapon and that is simply not true.

 

Sorry Tx, but someone running away carrying or firing a taser is not "deadly" ! Obviously, the D.A. agrees.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
310 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

 



He was not "firing a weapon" at the cop that shot him. He had already fired his taser at the other officer,   PRIOR  to the officer shooting him in the back running away You keep trying to claim that the cop shot and killed him while he was firing his weapon and that is simply not true.

 

Sorry Tx, but someone running away carrying or firing a taser is not "deadly" ! Obviously, the D.A. agrees.


 

You are confirming my comment that you have never experienced someone firing at you.  Brooks was probably not giving any rational thought of what sort of instrument he was firing.  I recall that mostly in the heat of the moment a person doesn't think rationally, and that basically why he grabbed the taser rather than the service weapon.  If had been thinking rationally he wouldn't had fired the tasar, but consider he was intoxicated.  His only thinking was to evade arrest at the moment.

 

Even a ballpoint pen can be a deadly weapon if one knows how to use it. It was taught how in the Jungle Survival School for pilots headed to Vietnam.  The tasar has been known to cause fatalities.  

 

Your post apparently is based more on partisan bias.

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:(in blue text)

 



He was not "firing a weapon" at the cop that shot him. He had already fired his taser at the other officer,   PRIOR  to the officer shooting him in the back running away You keep trying to claim that the cop shot and killed him while he was firing his weapon and that is simply not true.

 

Sorry Tx, but someone running away carrying or firing a taser is not "deadly" ! Obviously, the D.A. agrees.


 

You are confirming my comment that you have never experienced someone firing at you. What I posted is not a "confirmation" of anything but exactly what happened. Brooks was probably not giving any rational thought of what sort of instrument he was firing. "Probably" is a telling word. AND, he wasn't "firing" his taser, he had already fired it before the other officer shot and killed him, let's keep this straight. I recall that mostly in the heat of the moment a person doesn't think rationally, and that basically why he grabbed the taser rather than the service weapon. And this doesn't justify the  other officer shooting him in the back and killing him as he was running away. If had been thinking rationally he wouldn't had fired the tasar, but consider he was intoxicated. This also does not justify the other officer shooting him in the back and killing him as he was running away. His only thinking was to evade arrest at the moment. This also does not justify the other officer shooting him in the back and killing him as he was running away.

 

Even a ballpoint pen can be a deadly weapon if one knows how to use it. It was taught how in the Jungle Survival School for pilots headed to Vietnam. This has nothing to do with this man being killed unnecessarily. The tasar has been known to cause fatalities.  Then  the police should not use them like they did on the two students in the car, they shot them with tasers multiple times. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Your post apparently is based more on partisan bias. I have said nothing partisan unless it is "partisan" to explain the situation just as it happened. The officer shot and killed the man running away after he had already fired his taser at the other officer.

 

 


 


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
252 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Even a ballpoint pen can be a deadly weapon if one knows how to use it. It was taught how in the Jungle Survival School for pilots headed to Vietnam. This has nothing to do with this man being killed unnecessarily.


It has to with your comment about a taser not being deadly.  It was to illustrate that most anything could be deadly.

 

It appears that you are an authority in how people react in such the situation the cops was in where an intoxicated individual first attacked the officers, wrestled with them, attempted to grab one of their guns, then ended up with the taser.  And then was firing it at them.  That indicates he would have killed them if he could have.

 

I notice the range of a police taser is about 15 feet.  So do you know exactly how far Brooks was from them?   

There is no doubt that your comments are based more on partisanism than on anything to do with experience or training.   Going along with 'group think' here more than anything, and especially when sitting at a computer and criticizing a situation you're only basing on what you read in the media.
 
I wouldn't judge anyone in that situation based on news reporting in the media.  
 
 
0 Kudos
310 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

 


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Even a ballpoint pen can be a deadly weapon if one knows how to use it. It was taught how in the Jungle Survival School for pilots headed to Vietnam. This has nothing to do with this man being killed unnecessarily.


It has to with your comment about a taser not being deadly.  It was to illustrate that most anything could be deadly.

 

It appears that you are an authority in how people react in such the situation the cops was in where an intoxicated individual first attacked the officers, wrestled with them, attempted to grab one of their guns, then ended up with the taser.  And then was firing it at them.  That indicates he would have killed them if he could have.

 

I notice the range of a police taser is about 15 feet.  So do you know exactly how far Brooks was from them?   

There is no doubt that your comments are based more on partisanism than on anything to do with experience or training.   Going along with 'group think' here more than anything, and especially when sitting at a computer and criticizing a situation you're only basing on what you read in the media.
 
I wouldn't judge anyone in that situation based on news reporting in the media.  
 
 

It could be considered to be "group think" for someone to keep defending cops killing people running away while sitting at a computer regardless of experience. So should jurors be required to "have experience and training"?  It's difficult for anyone to be "deadly" while running away without some type of very serious weapon. That does not include a "ballpoint pen" or a taser. The video itself (without the "news reporting in the media") is very clear as to what happened. The D.A. has pressed charges, Take your argument to him if you like


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
368 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

The law the police were trying to enforce could only be public intoxication. there was ZERO evidence of any other offense.

 

So WHY did they decide to take him into custody when he offered to leave his car in the parking lot and WALK to where his children were?

 

He was obviously in good shape to make such a walk, and if the cops had just let him go, nobody would've ever heard about the incident, and his kids would still have a mother AND a father.

 

As for running away - what do you suppose he'd heard was happening to OTHER black men taken into police custody? Republicans have created an atmosphere where it is totally reasonable for a Black American in 2020 to feel like a Jewish German in 1934 when confronted by police. This cannot stand, and the only solution is no more Republicans able to make the laws and condone police behavior that created this situation.

Honored Social Butterfly

Centrist, there's another element of the crime he was charged with. Apparently 2 shots hit Brooks in the back, but the 3rd shot missed and wound up in a car. Instead of hitting a car, that other shot could have easily seriously injured or killed an innocent bystander.

Honored Social Butterfly

Indeed....11 counts....they cover many clear atrocities....

 

And watch the Police Apologists "wiggle" and squirm....Here's to you, Chaz, Manic and others who clearly aren't biased against the police, but just have higher expectations of those PAID to enforce the law and serve the public! And ensure EQUAL JUSTICE on our streets!


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly

Gee, it seems that the District Attorney disagrees with this particular "Black Georgia Sheriff" (why did the poster of the topic point out that the Sheriff was Black?). The cop has been charged with 11 counts, including felony murder.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

To the police apologists:

 

People may "see what they want to see" and that's exactly what the members of the police force and others did, they sought the truth and saw it. They saw Rayshard Brooks get shot in the back and killed unjustifiably. As a result, his murderer has been charged with 11 separate counts plus felony murder. It seems that the officer also has a sordid past. See the topic I posted about it.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
465 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Sheriff Alfonzo Williams argued Tuesday that Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe was "completely justified" in using lethal force against 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks, whose death has sparked a new round of protests and controversy over policing and racial discrimination in the U.S.

 

The Mayor of Atlanta said just because you can kill someone doesn't mean you should.

 

I agree with the Mayor.  

0 Kudos
479 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

There are some who do not believe me when I posit the reason people support tRump the Toad is he uses all his power to inflict maximum harm on poor brown people. And here we have ALL the Toad Worshipers coming to the defense of the Police who kill unarmed people of color! How much more harm can you inflect than taking a persons LIFE for no good reason? It is the same mind set that supports tRump AND the killer cops - BOTH inflect maximum harm on non-white citizens, and THAT IS WHAT MATTERS TO THE NEO REPUBLICANS!

 

Forget their pious talk about preserving heritage - what they want is slaves! And the constant yammer about a few professional criminals taking advantage of protests to loot and burn is the GOPerLords mime for youtoism to equate harm to property with harm to PEOPLE.

 

There is no way voting for any Republican will ever do anything but increase the divide in our Nation.

Honored Social Butterfly

"Now some might say that shooting someone in the back constitutes a bad decision on the part of the LEO - not always.  It depends on the decision of the officer as to the potential danger."

 

At least three concepts are drummed into police officers during their training. 

  • A suspect who is running away from you is NOT a threat to your safety.
  • Never fire your weapon at a suspect when there are innocent people behind the suspect. In other words, always be aware that stray bullets can kill innocent people.
  • Always keep the context of situation in perspective.. In other words, you don't want to turn a minor offense into a fatality.
Honored Social Butterfly

Tx Said 

He failed the sobriety test, resisted when the officer attempted to put the restraints on, then attempted to grab the officer's gun, but instead grabbed the taser.  He then fired the taser at the officers.  What if it had been the firearm?

 

He was being restrained since he was a danger to others as an inebriated and returned to his vehicle.  He resisted arrest and became violent to the officers.  Yet they are the ones who are blamed?

 

Further, don't these protesters have jobs as a means of support?  How can they spend all that time on the streets?  

 

Trying to find the part about "he needed to be killed because....".  He grabbed the officers taser......not his gun........ None of us know what he was grabbing for but we do know he was a drunk, asleep in a car, and now he is dead.  We also know 

  1. There is no justification for his death under the circumstances.
  2. Statistics show it would not have happened had he been white.

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

I think this it's important to recognize that this all-or-nothing thinking about right and wrong is a cognitive distortion.  It's too simplistic for the complexities of humanity.   

 

If the fundamental goal for police is to remove an existing threat in society, then there are many ways to remove that threat.   Beat them up, lock them up, and keep them in jail is one way.   And that's been much of the history of police.  But is it the best way?  

 

There are many ways police could have removed the threat.  And taking him home was one of them.  Taking his keys so that he didn't hurt anyone.  Arranging for transport.  He's no longer a threat, society returns to the level of safety it strives for, and all is good. 

 

Maybe that's something states should look at.  A lower level DUI type of citation that does not result in arrest, but does result in removing the person from the streets while intoxicated, and then coordinating care/treatment, etc.   It can still be added to their driving record with points and blow up their insurance rates.   But it avoids arrest.  It more likely helps address the underlying problem of substance misuse.  

 

Also, he's not dead.

Honored Social Butterfly

IMHO ManicProgressive has the right idea. Republican tax scams have eliminated as many socially beneficial programs as possible - Affordable housing, better schools, public transportation, mental health care facilities, public owned drug and alcohol rehab programs, publicly owned hospitals - and given the job of "replacing" these services to the police, but also given the police nothing but bigger/more guns and military hardware to do the job. All those cops in our schools these days? Cities pay for them by eliminating guidance counselors and school nurses!

 

The police are how Republicans deal with homelessness, poverty, drug addiction, mental health issues AND crime. To pay for all that, the Republicans upped the ante for fines on everything from selling individual cigarettes to jay walking, and if you can't pay the fine, you go to jail - a revival of that long ago Conservative favorite DEBTORS PRISON!

 

IF you are serious about changing police behavior, STOP MAKING THE COPS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPUBLICANS SHREDDING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT! To do that requires money, and the only place to get it is from the Uberrich who have enjoyed 40 years of exponential growth in their wealth and income while the bottom 90% are earning LESS in real wages than their parents and grandparents did in 1964.

 

Repeal the Reagan Tax scam, and restore the social services GOPers eliminated to "pay" for this handout for the Uberrich. That one act will generate around $2.4 TRILLION in additional federal revenue which will restore everything from truant officers and school nurses to care facilities for the mentally disabled and housing for the homeless AND erase the Federal Deficit. Then get rid of all the nuance fines, including bail for non-violent crimes, GOPers enacted so they could pay for the military hardware they gave the police, legalize pot and decriminalize possession of drugs for personal use then restore and expand all those programs we had in the 1960's so cops can get back to the job of catching crooks.

Honored Social Butterfly

@ManicProgressive 

I agree with much that you say here but then again isn't that just giving more power to the enforcer for decision-making that could prove erroneous by some measure.  Now keep in mind, here I am talking about the job of those that don't really have some alternative agenda or malice - cops that are what some would say are "good" but have been put in a difficult situation and a split second decision has to be made. 

 

I think your idea in this regards might work IF perhaps there could be a "call" decision as to whom might be the best enforcer or professional to send in an incident and not send law enforcement when the offense is minor or especially if there is little to no knowledge that a crime has been committed.  Course, even then, society may condemn them if their actions aren't acceptable to them.

 

Then there has to be a decision as to which laws should be enforced by which level of employees.

The public does not seem to be able to make such a decision plus the public wants ease in performing this task (reporting).  A 9-1-1 dispatcher has some discretion as to whom to send based on the interview with the caller.  There is little decision making when there is a fire or smoke.  There is little decision making when there is a clear medical emergency.

 

But then comes the numerous other calls -every call has to be approached from the standpoint that it may be dangerous so caution is already heightened.

  • a group of teenagers walking down the street and I saw a "gun".  What kind of gun?  Real or fake or even imaginary.  ONLY the LEO is there to make the judgement.
  • suspicious movement/lights within a house that should be empty -
  • a person pulling a screaming child - ?????????????

Should a police officer or sheriff deputy be called for ordinance or revenue crimes??  Probably depends on the type and severity but just a 9-1-1 call is not gonna answer the type and severity in most instances.  A person selling a "loosie" or an un-permitted club selling alcohol.  What about a kid with a lemonade stand or a kid selling bottled water in a long line of traffic or a person or group doing "street window washing".  What about vagrants?

 

IMO, I think society has somewhat of a misconception about police and the decisions that they have to make in their job  - they are only human.  We seem to leave up to them to determine when they may "feel" that they or others are in jeopardy of harm. 

 

Now some might say that shooting someone in the back constitutes a bad decision on the part of the LEO - not always.  It depends on the decision of the officer as to the potential danger.  If the offender is armed and running towards a group of innocent others - would it be justified IF the action saved the lives of others?

 

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
293 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressive wrote:

I think this it's important to recognize that this all-or-nothing thinking about right and wrong is a cognitive distortion.  It's too simplistic for the complexities of humanity.   

 

If the fundamental goal for police is to remove an existing threat in society, then there are many ways to remove that threat.   Beat them up, lock them up, and keep them in jail is one way.   And that's been much of the history of police.  But is it the best way?  

 

There are many ways police could have removed the threat.  And taking him home was one of them.  Taking his keys so that he didn't hurt anyone.  Arranging for transport.  He's no longer a threat, society returns to the level of safety it strives for, and all is good. 

 

Maybe that's something states should look at.  A lower level DUI type of citation that does not result in arrest, but does result in removing the person from the streets while intoxicated, and then coordinating care/treatment, etc.   It can still be added to their driving record with points and blow up their insurance rates.   But it avoids arrest.  It more likely helps address the underlying problem of substance misuse.  

 

Also, he's not dead.

 

Thank you for your usual great insite and sensible reasoning.  After reading some posts here, one wonders if we are still in the 50's or 60's.  Good Lord; we are supposed to be the "intelligent life on this planet" and solar system.  I am beginning to wonder....


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
311 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Wait.............the regressive movement only found ONE BLACK law officer who thought the shooting was justified and now they are celebrating? 

Regular Social Butterfly

Richva wrote:

Wait.............the regressive movement only found ONE BLACK law officer who thought the shooting was justified and now they are celebrating?  🙄  🙄  😮

 

@Richva   On my God. First of all, i don't think anybody is "celebrating"!  Second, if you've been paying attention, there are MANY people in law and others (of all color if you must make that an issue)  that say this district attorney is overcharging because the shooting was justified! 

 

People are no longer...innocent until proven guilty.  And i'm not talking about something so obvious uncalled for as the Floyd situation!   

 


 

TRUMP-PENCE 2020!!! To Save This Country From The Insanity of The Dems!
0 Kudos
419 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sunluvngal wrote:

 

People are no longer...innocent until proven guilty.  And i'm not talking about something so obvious uncalled for as the Floyd situation!   

 


 


So this man was "proven guilty" before the officer executed (murdered) him? Is that the way you see it?  Fascinating. Oops, looks like the D.A. sees this differently than you do.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

@sunluvngal 

If the shooting was not necessary, how can it be justified. It seems that you are proposing an opinion, not a fact of law. 
I really doubt that anywhere in the code of conduct for police, that it says that it is justified to shoot a fleeing unarmed man in the back, wait two minutes to render aid, and kick him in the process. Yet, that is what took place, and you claim it is justified. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

@sunluvngal 

If the shooting was not necessary, how can it be justified. It seems that you are proposing an opinion, not a fact of law. 
I really doubt that anywhere in the code of conduct for police, that it says that it is justified to shoot a fleeing unarmed man in the back, wait two minutes to render aid, and kick him in the process. Yet, that is what took place, and you claim it is justified. 


Right you are, William.  According to the DA, the Atlanta Police SOP Manual say police officers cannot shoot a fleeing suspect unless they know, or can reasonably be sure that the suspect has a deadly weapon.  A tazer, shot twice already, is NOT a deadly weapon.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png