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

I'm hearing on the radio that LEO Brosnan is turning state's evidence to testify against LEO Rolfe.

 

Too strong of a charge - I expect an acquittal. Local politics basically forces them to bring the charge, which is a miscarriage of justice in and of itself.

 

11 charges for Officer Rolfe - main one being felony murder
3 charges for Officer Brosnan(sp?)

Asking both officers to surrender by tomorrow
Brosnan is cooperating for the state
Asking for 50K bond and for Mr. Brosnan to sign that bond
Recommending no bond for Officer Rolfe

 

I don't think the officers should be charged. Maybe they violated some protocol and should be suspended without pay but from my understanding, when a cop knows you have the balls to steal a taser from them and point it and shoot it at an officer, that officer has no idea if his intention is to murder. It's a split second decision. The thing that people don't understand is when you are tazed, your body locks up which means that a man who was brave enough to steal a taser from a cop now has free access to his firearm because the officer is now locked up from being tazed and is defenseless. That is probably the main fear the cops was experiencing when the individual was about to shoot him with a taser.

In the officer's shoes I can see a split second decision where he is in fear of his life where he felt the need to shoot the individual.

 

Definitely an overreach, IMO.

 

Accidents/mistakes that result in death are still often criminal. The reality is, the major problem is he shot him in the back while he was fleeing.

 

I'm not familiar enough with Georgia law but what is "Felony Murder"? Is it like 3rd degree or 2nd degree murder or is just what they call any deliberate taking of life?

 

Maybe manslaughter is possible but I think that a good lawyer can easily defend the officer's actions.

The victim here had the courage and will power to steal a taser from a cop. That action alone shows that this individual is capable of being a very dangerous threat. Now that same person points a taser at the officer when the officer knows that if the perp connects with that taser, his body would lock up and he would become defenseless and the perp would have free access to his firearm.

Just like not all rear end collisions aren't the fault of the car that was behind, not all sj

 

As I've been saying this is a grey situation but looking over the evidence out there so far and some of the counter views I still think this isn't justified. I think that Rolfe escalated to lethal force not in a split second but with plenty of time to consider alternatives. From what the sheriff that I posted yesterday said when they are on the ground the LEO would consider that as being life threatening and my guess is that that was when Rolfe decided to go to lethal force. The actually shots happened several seconds afterwards but leading up to that you can see Rolfe drawing his pistol signalling he's already decided to go lethal before Rolfe has fired the taser at him.

 

From the video it does seem like the officer started firing as soon as he saw Rayshard Brooks turn his body around to aim the taser at his partner. I think that is what convinced the officer to fire his weapon. Again, that officer has no clue what the intention of the individual is after he hypothetically successfully connects with the taser. Brooks could very well have stolen the nearby officer's firearm after he tased him while the officer is locked up.

 

You can defend those actions for sure but then it gets darker. Police stands on his shoulder and kicks him as his dying and refuse to get him medical aide.

 

Another poor argument I see is that a taser isn't a deadly weapon. That's like saying being chloroformed to pass out so someone can rape you isn't a "deadly weapon".

A taser can be the tool that allows someone to comit violence on someone when their body is locked up and defenseless. If I had a conceal carry and saw someone about to whip out their taser and they are about to point it me, I'm going to see if I can draw first to shoot them lethaly because I have no idea what the person's intention is after my body is locked up and defenseless.

 

If they refused to give him aid, ya I can see that as a criminal charge. I'm not sure if it's worthy of felony murder though I don't know what felony murder exactly is in Georgia. Does it include "man slaughter" because that's the only charge that I can see have some chance at a conviction.

 

I've brought this up several times. In the video before Brooks even fires the taser Rolfe switches the taser to his left hand so he can unholster his pistol. Anytime a firearm is drawn by an LEO the decision to use lethal force has already been made. There is no such thing as shooting to wound. It's possible if Brooks stops running and surrenders then he wouldn't have shot but Rolfe already knows he is prepared to use lethal force well before taser was fired.

The other issue is where was Brosnan. My guess is Brosnan's testimony will be he was in position to back up Rolfe incase Rolfe had been hit by the taser and that he didn't feel that lethal force was necessary to counter the taser especially when ROlfe had his taser drawn and aimed at Brooks until he switched it to his other hand.

I agree that if "felony murder" is the same as 2nd or 1st degree murder this is an overreach and will be very hard to get a conviction. If it is similar to 3rd degree or manslaughter then it might be the right charge.

 

You can't murder somebody with a taser and he had backup.

None of this was a split second decision.

What video did you watch?

 

I never claimed that the officer was shooting to wound. He was obviously shooting to kill as he's trained. "center of mass". I know all about it as it's the same concept taught in Marine infantry.

I'm claiming that the officer believed lethal force was justifiable as soon as the perp turned his body around to aim a weapon that can render his partner defenseless while also potentially creating an opportunity where the perp can steal his partner's firearm while he is locked up.

 

To follow up on the importance of the LEO drawing his firearm. When a firearm is drawn there are only two intended results either it is holstered without being discharged or it has been fired with the intention to kill. This was key regarding the conviction of LEO Noor in the Justine Ruscyck case. Once it was established that Noor had taken his weapon out indicated he was ready to use lethal force at any provocation and that it was irresponsible of him to have done that.

 

You really need to find out more about the case, Brosnan has a lot to say.