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

And my argument is that it never should've come to that. He shouldn't have unholstered his pistol given that he already had his own taser out, aimed and was in pursuit. The only intent of the switching to the firearm was to kill and that he had already given up on less than lethal force.

 

Has Brosnan made a public statement?

 

Two more pieces of information that I'm not sure has been brought up.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/bl...06-17-2020/h_16327655613201bb28c8096e1c705dd7

From the link:
"
Former Atlanta officer kicked Rayshard Brooks after he shot him, DA says


Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said that former Atlanta officer Garrett Rolfe kicked Rayshard Brooks "while he laid on ground, while he was there fighting for his life" after he was shot.

Howard said that the other officer on the scene, Devin Brosnan, stood on Brooks' shoulders "while he struggled for his life."

"Once Mr. Brooks was shot, there is an Atlanta policy that requires that the officers have to provide timely medical attention to Mr. Brooks or to anyone who is injured. But after Mr. Brooks was shot, for some period of two minutes and 12 seconds, there was no medical attention applied to Mr. Brooks," the district attorney said.

At the news conference, Howard displayed a photo he said shows Rolfe kicking Brooks after he had been shot. There were audible gasps in the room as Howard revealed the image:
"
Also
"
Atlanta police officers are prohibited from firing a gun at someone who is running away, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said during a news conference today.

Howard referenced the city's standard operating procedure (SOP), which also prohibits officers from firing a taser at someone running away, he said.

"The city of Atlanta SOP, in fact, prohibit officers from firing tasers someone who is running away. So the city of Atlanta says you could not even fire a taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a gun, a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said."

 

That pretty much sums it up and something that nobody has said, if Rolfe felt his life was threatened he would not have been chasing him, he would have went for cover.

 

No but he has given a private one.

 

Great explanation! This is one of the rare instances where I am in 100% agreement with you.

 

I see the points that @rocketsjudoka is making.

The one point I overlooked is this: Could the officer have used his taser instead of his firearm to stop the perp. The officer made a conscious decision to switch from taser to gun. Why did he do that? That is going to be the key here. Could the officer accomplish his desire to protect himself with using just the taser that he already had unholstered.

 

Also Floyd is going to be a much more sympathetic character to defend because the police were called on him for a fake 20 dollar bill. That was the instigation that led to his murder.

For Brooks, he was caught sleeping in a drive thru line in the driver seat **** faced which means he was drunk driving.

 

Thanks. I do feel this will be a difficult case to prosecute and the argument you present has validity. Also given what I heard the sheriff from GA yesterday say on CNN shows that there will be LE testimony for the defense even if Brosnan testifies for the prosecution.

 

Yes I think it will be difficult to play Brooks as a sympathetic victim.

Personally I can understand why prosecutors want to play off sympathy towards the victim but I'm troubled by it. I think that had a lot to do with the difference between the LEO who killed Justine Ruscyck being convicted and Philando Castile's being exonerated. In the Ruscyck case it was an attractive white woman while Philando Castile was black man with corn rows. While Castile by all accounts was good man who helped students you still saw the defense attack his character and bring up issues like he used mar1juana. You didn't seen that with Ruscyck and it was easier to play up sympathy towards her to a Minnesota jury. Especially when the LEO was a Somali.

 

Atlanta police officers are prohibited from firing a gun at someone who is running away, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said during a news conference today.

Howard referenced the city's standard operating procedure (SOP), which also prohibits officers from firing a taser at someone running away, he said.

"The city of Atlanta SOP, in fact, prohibit officers from firing tasers someone who is running away. So the city of Atlanta says you could not even fire a taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a gun, a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said."

 

Rolfe kicked Brooks twice after he shot him before he was dead.

Not a lot of sympathy for him either.

 

He was running away while turning his body to fire the stolen taser. To me that's a justifiable reason to tase him. I assume you would believe it's a justifiable reason for an officer to shoot a individual who is running away while firing their gun behind them towards the officers.

If the statute says that regardless of context, shooting someone who is running away is always unjustifiable then I believe that statute is dumb. There are certainly contextual situations where someone running away is still a deadly threat.

 

To me, these statutes on restrictions on deadly force such as making choke holds federally illegal or making shooting someone running away illegal are not the solutions to the problem. The actual solution to me is changing the overall "warrior" culture that is rampant in law enforcement in the US. The recruitment phase is the most important phase to reform.

 

I highlighted some things for those who posted earlier in the thread, saying Brooks got what he was asking for....and yet, have not formulated a new response after this update was posted.

Maybe the officers thought Brooks was a black Sonny Corleone? Kick a dead body in the head....that'll keep Lazarus down!

I'm not justifying Brooks' reaction, but he was under the influence and when told it's time for him to go to the slammer, he panicked. Thing is, the cops had the dude's car. They had his license. Let him go. He can't stay gone forever....oh, well, now he can. Ain't coming back now.

 

Why are equating a taser to a handgun?

A gun is lethal and a taser is not and it's less than a 5% chance he could have hit the officer running with a taser and if he did get hit he had backup.

If the officer felt threatened for his life why was he chasing him.

I can't believe you are trying to make this argument.

 

You can do both.

 

The DA said not shooting a fleeing suspect is Standard Operating Procedure for Atlanta but is it a state law? In the Eric Ganer case LEO Panteleo used a technique banned by NYPD but not illegal under state law. Even if it isn't SOP the defense might still argue that Rolfe considered Brooks enough of an imminent danger to himself and the public justified shooting him even if it wasn't SOP.

 

I specifically disagree with this statement. I agree with this statement in context of Floyd. His fake 20 dollar bill wasn't a threat to society. This man was drunk driving. The act of drunk driving should always be enforced by law enforcement. There needs to be strong incentives to make people scared shitless to drink and drive because empathy to not cause someone else's death is obviously not enough of a barrier to not do it for many people. He was a danger to society if cops let him go.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-shot-rayshard-brooks-charged-murder-n1231305

"When we examined the videotape and in our discussions with witnesses, what we discovered is during the 2 minutes and 12 seconds, Officer Rolfe actually kicked Mr. Brooks while he laid on the ground, while he was there fighting for his life," Howard said. " Secondly, from the videotape we were able to see that the other officer, Officer Brosnan, actually stood on Mr. Brooks’ shoulders while he was there struggling for his life. "