If You Take An Officer's Taser In Fight With The Officer That You Started, You Deserve Getting Shot

The same is true of every single human being. This individual only reacted violently when threatened with detention and handcuffs.

I think I mentioned they could have just followed from a safer distance to reduce tensions or they could go to his home. They could go to his home the next day if needed. He was being arrested because he was a drunk driving threat. They had his car. He wasn't a threat for that anymore.

It is a better use of manpower to track him rather than kill him. You've already put out there that it was a bad mix and he could have been a threat to others. I disagree but if you believe that then manpower to follow him is exactly what should be used.

His actions were wrong and he should have been held accountable. He shouldn't have been killed.

 

I don't think many would have a problem if the victim got caught and got his ass beat some, just not killed.
Whatever reforms come out of the movement, I hope some are like official YouTube videos for procedures and use of force so that we stop publicly adjudicating these situations on the fly. It's 2020, the tech is available. Next time someone gets shot on camera by cops, we can reference "Suspect Confrontation Scenario 7.C3" or something like that, and everyone can see if the cops were acting properly or improperly. Then the debate can be about the policy itself.

 

No one wants to be arrested. But very, very few react violently. I am not sure if you are trying to say that he shouldn't have been arrested against his will?

Again, do you think he'd be home if cops were looking for him? Do you think he'd surrender willingly if they went to his house? Can you see the problematic situation you are calling for?

So we let drunk drivers go once we confiscate their cars? That's the only way a drunk could be a threat to someone else?

I never said anything like that. I said that we shouldn't just let go of people who didn't want to be arrested and then find him at a later date. You agree with that as well that's why you had to change my argument.

Like I said in one of these threads, these types of situations are usually a bad mix of two people who couldn't handle the situation. One that refuses to go to jail peacefully, and the other that sometimes makes decisions that are hard to defend outside the court of law. As in this situation, it is possible that many cops would have handled the situation differently, I have no idea.

 

Yes to everything -- all those are preferable to taking someone's life to me. Deadly force should be the absolute last resort. We need to get back to thinking of police as peace keepers and not the military version whose orders must be 100% followed.

The police knew the suspect was not armed with a deadly weapon and was running away from them. That the suspect blindly threw the tazer behind him as he was running should not have made a trained officer fear for his life. Especially when that trained officer had a partner with him that could have easily helped if he was subdued by the tazer.

Given the scuffle, this will not result in any court action/convictions, but the officer who fired the gun should be fired. I guess this actually needs to be said: we need to better train our officers so they won't fear for their life when someone is running away from them with a non-lethal weapon. Make it harder to become a police officer, with more training (tilted toward de-escalation training moreso than gun training), and pay them more for those that make it through it -- then hold them to a higher standard than ordinary citizens due to their training.

 

Of course that would have been preferable to shooting them. But the choice isn't between letting them go and shooting them. The cop didn't need to shoot him. But he shouldn't be forced to stop his pursuit. That was my point.

The suggestion was for cops to let people go instead of chasing them. I did not agree with that because of the things that would happen if that was the protocol for people resisting arrest. More would resist and more manpower would be wasted in finding people who don't want to be found. It would also be difficult to convict people of certain crimes when they aren't taken in red handed.

Those are all good suggestions. I would add incentivizing men of color to join the police force by paying them more. Paying for law school tuitions of qualified POC. Attracting men of color to the teaching profession by paying them more as well. Lots could be done.

 

Man, dude was asking for it but that doesn't mean you should give it to him. I think the attorney is right, no matter how provocative he was being, the cops' lives were not in danger so the force was excessive. The alternatives are all a lot more work, but that doesn't mean you get to kill.

 

It sounds like we agree that the situation did not call for the use of deadly force, so I'll leave it at that. While I agree that police shouldn't be forced to stop pursuit, an officer's judgment should also come into play. If you're at a point of having to use deadly force or let him outrun you, I would certainly hope they let him run -- especially in the case of a non-violent crime (drunk in a parked car) and you have the vehicle/his face on camera/etc. That doesn't mean cops should never give chase, but you shouldn't get to use your gun if you can't outrun someone.

I don't think I can support the idea of paying minority police more or giving them free education; I personally don't like the idea of discriminating against one race to benefit another. I do think the police force should be an accurate representation of the population it polices; I'll have to think of ways to encourage more minorities to serve on the force. I also wish we could bring back foot patrols to help them get to know the neighborhoods they are paid to serve.

 

School shooters leave in handcuffs often.

It doesn’t matter if the person is the pope or someone awful like Draymond Green, it’s not the cops, or public’s job to make a judgement of morality, that’s for the courts.

If this guy was shot in the back running away there isn’t much excuse. There were two cops, a taser shouldn’t lead to a shooting if there are two cops.

 

It was just lazy
Easier to shoot him in the back
Than chasing him down.
Than picking him up the next day at his home or job

It is a built in habit
And it is easier.

Rocket River

 

That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying he was violent when he was threatened with arrest. If they followed at a safer distance he wasn't going to be violent against other.s

If they are following him, as I mentioned, it didn't matter where he went, they would see him. He would eventually go home. He has a family.

Nope. I didn't advocate letting him go free. Where are you getting this? Immediate apprehension wasn't required. He would be apprehended in due time as he should have been. He still would have been arrested and it is likely it could have been done without killing him.

 

From start to finish the stupidity displayed by both parties is truly amazing -- when he started escalating and resisting if the cops had just let him go for arrest later they would have caught hell when they got back to the station. But shooting someone in a parking lot with other people in close proximity in the back is reckless and likely criminal. Again though if they had let him run off with the taser they would have caught hell at the station. This is all about de-escalation and the mindset/ training of LEOs.

 

There is nothing that could be done to help the relationship between black men and the police more than having more black men serve as police officers. I believe the same could be said of receiving better representation and fairer judgments in court. Whatever has to be done to help those two initiatives has to be done.

I mentioned this in the why there is racism thread, but it applies here as well, as correct as people are in saying George Floyd would be alive if he were white, it is also correct to say that he would still be alive if Chauvin was black. Same goes with this case, Rayshard Brooks would still be alive if the officers trying to arrest him were black.

I am not blaming racism here for any of that stuff. We just naturally prefer people more like us. There are actually studies that show that interactions between black men and the police improve in a big way when something like 30% of the police force is black.

 

They don't have time for that. I could imagine that literally taking hours. Cops have more important things to do than follow a suspect until he was willing to go to jail peacefully.

His family would probably understand if he was away for a bit until the police quit searching for him. Which they would because they would eventually find better uses for their time.

I just can't agree with this in due time stuff. If something like that became protocol, you would see people resisting arrest all the time. Some laws wouldn't even be worth enforcing anymore. I think you are advocating a massive change over this shooting. If it was unlawful, then the cop will get tried and convicted. Doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

I have a good friend who's a cop , posts on one of the Texans forums and he expresses this sentiment often .... we can ll play armchair cop but until you've been in those situations .... its totally different.

 

My cousin is HPD. After speaking with him we were able to conclude the following:

• I thought he passed the sobriety test. He was counting clearly while standing on one foot. My cousin said that he got the impression that the officers smelled alcohol on him.
• Brooks appeared to panic when the officer brought out the handcuffs. My cousin said that gave him the impression that he may have had outstanding warrants so he resisted arrest. Initially, I thought he was simply scared of the police after all that has gone down but I have since come to agree with my cousin.
• We both agree that Brooks escalated the situation by failing to comply with the officer's commands.
• The officer knew Brooks was unarmed as he'd just patted him down so his having that taser meant that he wasn't armed with a deadly weapon. When he pointed the taser back at the officer, he did so pointing it over said officer's head as he ran. We believe that the officer reacted to the pop of the taser going off.
• The fact that Brooks was still struggling after being tasered gave my cousin the impression that he may have been under the influence of drugs. That mades him unpredictable and dangerous. A cop's first instinct is to get the suspect on the ground which did not happen in this case.
• My cousin and I both agree that the officer paniced and started shooting because the looked like he was about to escape. Police aren't trained to wound suspects but to drop them at all costs.
• That officer reacted poorly because the guy was on foot and really had nowhere to go. PLUS, they already had his identification so they knew who he was and where he lived. It would have been a simple matter to pick him up later BUT my cousin pointed out that police aren't trained to think that way.

The fact that he was asleep in the drive-thru lane at a Wendy's would seem to indicate some sort of impairment. This is extremely unfortunate but I don't feel that it can be lumped in with the event in Minneapolis, Unlike there, this event unfolded rapidly leaving the officers with little time to react whereas that officer had plenty of time to stop after Mr. Floyd was on the ground. Instead he made the conscious decision to end Mr. Floyd's life. That's what's different in this case.

 

I'm sure it is different but if we say that you can't judge it because you weren't there then noone could ever be found guilty.

The standard is what would a reasonable person do and that does require some armchair quarterbacking.

 

I think this is a pretty good analysis. The two areas I would disagree with are that they did try to get Brooks onto the ground but they couldn't keep him there. LEO Brosnan did a horrible job assisting Rolfe and also securing his weapon.

Regarding if the LEO Rolfe panicked in shooting Brooks I'm getting less convinced of this and am leaning towards that this isn't justifiable. I go back to that Rolfe was chasing Brooks and switched the weapon to his left hand so he could draw his pistol. This was before Brooks had tried to shoot him with the taser. That tells me that LEO Rolfe had already decided to go to lethal force not out of reacting to the pop of Brooks firing the taser.

I completely agree this isn't close to what happened to George Floyd and if Rolfe is charged would expect the charges to reflect that.

 

Then that's the problem. If they or anyone else thinks it's better to kill a human rather than spend the time to apprehend him peacefully or at least without deadly force then we have the root of the problem. Police and community relations will never improve and only get worse.

What? You wouldn't see people resisting arrest all the time. They would get beat, face steeper charges, longer jail time, higher fines etc. Also most people aren't just out to pull something over.

I'm advocating a massive change but it's based on decades if not longer of problems with the police department and the way it's carried out its business especially in the communities of minorities.

The man that was shot might be on the loose for a few hours or even a few days. Nobody would be hurt because of it. He wasn't attacking people, he wasn't wanted or apprehended initially because of any violence. He would still end up arrested. He would still face charges for DuI, resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, parole violation.

Justice would be served, the cops would still have their job, there wouldn't have been another stain on law enforcement who's image is at or close to an all-time low right now. All of that would have been the result had they done what has been suggested.

The fact that for you, you believe that's not more valuable than spending the time and trouble to not shoot him is the problem.

 

Nobody thinks it's better to kill a human rather than apprehend him in any other way that takes his life. Again, I don't like the idea of letting suspects go freely if arresting them proves troublesome.

Okay, so today people know that you could resist all you want but you are still going to jail come hell or high water. Right?

You are advocating for cops to pursue an arrest up until a point that it begins to endanger the lives of yourself or the suspect. Correct? Not sure if you've even thought this through.

Either way, in that case, you are saying that people will not be incentivized to resist arrest?

I don't believe that is the case. People resist and run now knowing that it will just lead to more trouble once they are caught. Imagine if they knew they'll have at least a few days until they are caught if they resist and run away knowing that cops will have to fall back.

In this climate, there are a lot of throw away the baby with the bath water initiatives. This is one of them. The vast majority of police pursuits do not end in the death of a suspect.

You don't know that. Nobody can know that. Dude was desperate. Willing to hurt cops, but no one else? Riiiiigggt. I'm not saying he would have, but there is nothing to suggest he was not going to harm anyone else.

Not sure about the DUI. Not sure how strong a breathalyzer test result is in court. This is what I meant when I said some crimes require catching a suspect red handed in order to convict.

If you respond, please stop saying that I consider shooting someone the solution to someone running from the cops. Be honest. I've said that enough for you to keep repeating it just for argument's sake.