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

That is awfully suspicious of the DA. If they have video of the kick why not just post the video rather than a screenshot?

People need to realize this DA isn't a friend of our cause. He's hungry for re-election.

 

The article said there were ten witnesses that stated it. 10 is different than one. Yes, if Brooks was running and shooting a firearm backward as he ran, that would be a different set of circumstances.

Rolfe pulled his gun before Brooks turned the taser back in his direction.

 

What does this have to do with anything?

What exactly do you think this video proves?

Your slipping O's just like you to post something and not comment on how it's relevant to the topic at hand.

Anything to stir the pot.

 

I prefer video evidence. They were able to produce a still shot so they have the ability to release the video evidence. Witnesses cannot be trusted. Just look at what witnesses said about the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson. They said Brown was hands up/don't shoot which was later proven to be bullcrap.

 

I agree a video might better make things clear. However, a picture and at least ten separate witness accounts is what we have to go on.

However, just the still image alone proves the officer did not give immediate medical aid which is the policy and he was in violation of that one, no matter what else he might have also done.

 

Most definitely. This reeks of political motives.

 

That screenshot proves absolutely nothing about medical aid. The officer could have very easily came and nudged him to see if he was okay prior to bending down and giving medical aid. Again, I am extremely open to change my mind with proof. Witnesses have zero credibility. Just release the video and it erases all questions about what happened immediately after the shooting. If they have the screenshot then they have the video. There is zero reason to not release the video other than trying to frame a narrative that did not happen.

 

What about the danger to others by Rolfe discharging his weapon?

You know the LEO hit another occupied vehicle.

 

Because his gun is his only weapon. Rolfe had spent all the Taser cartridges and that didn't stop Brooks.

 

So why were they talking amicably for 40 minutes before trying to arrest him and not telling him why?

 

Nudging someone with your foot isn't how you determine if a person needs medical aid.

 

Did he not have a baton? Either way, Rolfe's actions proved to be far more dangerous to bystanders than Brooke's.

He shot into a crowded parking lot and hit a car containing 3 civilian passengers.

 

Brooks did not have a fully loaded Taser, get your facts straight.

 

Good post and really appreciate the expertise you and other posters are bringing it and also how many posters are thinking this through and looking at the evidence.

Following my own expertise I find it disturbing that the chance of a suspect taking away a weapon from an LEO is uncharted territory. We've had several incidences of LEO getting weapons taken away from them, @B@ffled posted a video showing that happening. We have Judo Kata involving how to disarm someone including someone with a pistol. Being aware that your weapon could be taken from you just seems like something very basic to me and as I've said several times this is showing a big problem with how LE are trained.

 

Regarding the taser discussion. Rolfe took LEO Brosnan's taser which if I remember correctly had been discharged at least once. I've heard that what Brosnan will testify too is that after the last shot from Brooks that taser should no longer be effective.

 

1) Wouldn't the argument be that Rolfe would be more justified in pulling his firearm before Brooks aimed/shot the taser since the taser, being expended, then presents no threat?

2) You're incorrect.

Watch the video. Slow down to X.25 speed. Mind the timestamps.

Screen captures for reference:

Officer is pointing taser at Brooks, full on pursuit.



Brooks swings his arm backwards aiming the taser at the officer, officer moves his hand to his weapon as this happens.



A split second later the taser goes off, officer's firearm still not drawn.



Within the same second, the officer's weapon is out and shots are fired with Brooks still aiming the taser at the officer.




I think Rolfe had to make a split second, lizard brain decision on whether his life was in danger. He saw the weapon being aimed and made his mind up he was going to shoot Brooks. The taser actually getting fired was not of much consequence, the series of events was already set in motion.

 

This is such a nonsensical argument.

There is a difference between a LEO and a civilian who is armed also you are omitting the fact that the guy was running away and some distance so the probability of him getting tassed was minimal.

You also ignore the fact that the officer knew the Taser was empty when he shot.

You are so hell bent on having a argument even though have all ready acknowledge that the officer chose to go to lethal force before Brooks shot, thats a conscious act.

At no point was Brooks advancing toward Rolfe which makes your whole argument moot.

 

No. Rolfe shouldn't have drawn the gun at all. I was incorrect in saying he drew the gun first. He did move to draw it first but didn't get it drawn all the way out.

He made up his mind to use his gun beforehand. His training and decision making failed him. Now he should be held accountable.

 

I can't seem to get your links to work but from what I saw earlier Rolfe switches the taser from his right to his left hand and then reaches down to free his firearm from his holster before Brooks turns around and shoots. While he doesn't fully draw it until after the Brooks taser shot he's already decided to escalate to lethal force by moving to draw his pistol.

 

I don't think you can know this