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

Officer Rolfe was a greater threat to the public.

I agree that you don't just let him go. But you could reduce the speed and distance of pursuit.

I disagree that he was a credible threat to others. People, even those who have made irrational but intentionally targeted violent decisions don't just start moving into random attacking and harming bystanders. That's not how it works.

 

While I disagree, I don't feel that strongly about it for all cases.

But I do believe that there should be situational judgment. He shouldn't have drawn it in a crowded parking lot. He certainly shouldn't have fired it.

Moving and aiming the way he was in this instance, Brooks wasn't really a threat with the taser. He was moving and aiming wildly not accurately.

I can sympathize that it was a stressful situation, but of the officer couldn't make wiser decisions in those types of situations, he should have a different job or at least different assignment.

 

Irrationality is irationality.

Also even in blatant justified shootings from cops to civilians, there always is a chance of a round going through the target and missing the target and hitting something behind it.

Is a young woman walking by herself with a conceal carry who gets jumped where she assumes she's about to get raped and proceeds to fire rounds into the individual whos jumping her a threat to public society if one of those rounds hit the side of a building or car door?

The argument that because a stray round hit a car, the shooting is criminal is not a valid argument. You can have a valid shooting and hit stray car. That's the unfortunate reality of self defense with firearms.

Your argument basically states that almost any situation where a firearm is used in self defense would be criminally negligent because the person in self defense wasn't 100% accurate.

 

it's not his job or his training to follow in range of a Taser, he could have distanced himself at any time and still gave chase.

At no point did he need to unholster his weapon because Brooks was running away and you know he had backup.

It does not matter really if the Taser was charged because Rolfe had ample room to not be in danger.

 

Hence why I think they should be punished in terms of their careers, not criminally. They weren't wise and performed their jobs poorly to properly restrain Brooks.

 

This is where a disconnect is happening with a lot of people.

Imagine Brooks runs through traffic evading arrest and causes a serious car crash. Imagine he breaks into someone's home to hide. Imagine he takes a hostage. I know these are what-ifs, but after a man assaults the police, steals their weapon(s), and fires at them... all just to evade arrest... how 'not dangerous' can you really expect this person to be?

I'm not saying that this justifies shooting him, by the way, but people need to get this idea out of their head that this guy was just a totally neutral actor the moment the scuffle ended and that he posed no threat to anyone.

 

I don't know what you mean by Rolfe had ample room to not be in danger? When Brooks turned around to aim the taser, the taser was well in range to successfully connect with Rolfe if he didn't miss.

 

You're pulling this straight out of your butt dude.

FYI LEO tasers can reach up to 35 feet.

The guy was running away from police, drunk, after assaulting them and stealing their weapons.

They would be in dereliction of duty if they didn't attempt to pursue and apprehend him! They're the police. What are they supposed to do? Observe and report like Paul Blart?

 

He could have still given chase and not out himself in any danger it was a freakin Taser.

I have never said he should not be detained so stop that strawman.

Once again why did Rolfe chase so closely if he thought he was in danger?

Why did he grab for his gun when the subject was fleeing which is not something he was trained to do?

 

I think that's where the degree of threat comes into play. If Brooks had a gun and was firing, then that degree of threat is higher. If Brooks was advancing rather than retreating from Rolfe (if there were no other officers present) , that would be a higher degree of threat.

In this case none of those conditions were present. Shooting a firearm at a fleeing suspect, who at that time had an expended taser is a greater threat than the fleeing suspect.

Irrationality isn't equal to all irrationality when it comes to threat of life. Trump is irrational. But Trump with a loaded gun in a crowd still isn't an immediate threat to all of those in the crowd.

 

Great question and I'm really not sure. Some of the things I'm interested in if this goes to trial and is televised: 1) expert testimony from the taser manufacturer about its potency; 2) testimony from officers who trained him and 3) either defendant's testimony on whether or not they checked his criminal history and what that consisted of.

Point 3 is somewhat relevant. If Brooks had a warrant or was on parole/probation for some type of violent crime, this would play heavily in how they're profiling this guy. But it really all boils down to the second between Brooks deploying the taser and officer firing. Closest comparison I can think of is a store owner chasing someone who just stole his cash register. Even if the owner somehow knew suspect had a stun gun on him, I think the situation may be volatile enough where a jury could see him fearing great physical harm once the taser was deployed in his direction. It's a close call and that's why I don't see 12 people agreeing on a guilty verdict.

 

Yeah. That's sin #1 here. Two fully grown men can't handle one dude. And they're cops. That's embarrassing. Can we please start paying for these guys to take Jujutsu classes?

 

He could have not followed in range of the Taser.

If Brooks had a firearm would Rolfe have been chasing like that?

 

Without video evidence we do not know if that was even as much as a nudge. He may very well have been trying to get the taser away from him before rendering aid. If the taser fell to his side he could have tried to slide it out of reach with his foot before rendering aid. There is no way to know without the video. Just post the video evidence and we can all see for ourselves. Like I have already said multiple times I am very open to the officer kicking him but a single screenshot does not prove anything. The only thing the still shot proves is the officer had his foot close to his chest for a split second.

 

You can still pursue while not being in range of a Taser, after he saw Brooks fire he coud have throttled down and called for more backup if he felt his life was threatened.

That's what cops do when they actually feel threatened they take cover.

No this is not Paul Blart but its not Cobra either.

 

Applying Occam's razor here it's most likely the officer stepped on his arm to remove the weapon.

 

They talked to subject for 40 minutes before they tried arresting him I am pretty sure his threat level had all ready been established.

I think the murder charge is an overreach but the kicks kind of go to state of mind I think manslaughter is the right thing.

My real issue is if the LEO actually thought his life was in danger he could have done multiple things to still give chase and not be in range of Taser, also the fact that the taser had all ready been fired so his life was not being threatened at the time he pulled the trigger.

I don't know why people are equating a Taser to a firearm in using the threat level to the officer it's not the same thing.

 

How does Occam's razor apply to 10 witnesses at the scene?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

 

What does that have to do with Lethality?

Do better Baffled.