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

I apologize for lumping you in with other posters, I should not have done that because I despise it.

My bad.

Yes we need to see the video but it seems some are all ready coming to a conclusion, I just don't think the DA would make that up when we know the defense will get a copy of the video.

 

doesn't seem like Rolfe was going to shoot until the taser was aimed at him. If Brooks had stolen his handgun, I think the other officer would be justified in shooting immediately. So they are treating the weapons as different to some degree.

Assuming Rolfe is instinctively reaching for the gun right as Brooks is firing, do you think Rolfe should allow himself to get tased without using lethal force? Genuinely curious, not asking rhetorically

 

No I don't think he should have allowed himself to get tased what I am saying there is multiple ways to avoid a Taser by a fleeing subject.

When he saw the Taser being aimed he could have just stopped chasing or stopped and then resumed chase, his 1st instinct should not have been to switch the weapon, at that time he decided deadly force was needed I don't see that.

He all ready had the Taser in his hand why did he not fire that when he saw him aiming?

 

I am open to the officer having kicked him. If the officer did so he should face criminal charges for it. I do however not see the whole event as a murder based on what I have seen so far. I think the officer made a terrible mistake, one that I am sure he regrets. I think the shooting could easily be handled with the police department disciplinary process again based on what I have seen up to this point. I am also open to changing my mind on that if farther evidence should come to light. I think this case should be handled on its own merits without regard to the current racial tensions that resulted from the actual murder committed by the douchebag cop in Minnesota over a 1,000 miles away. I can see why a DA who faces re-election could feel pressured to make this more than what it was in a town that is majority African American due to so much current racial tension. I also think that there is a very good chance the officer is acquitted for murder which could very well set off a whole lot more racial tension. I wish the DA would have let a more thorough investigation take place and then release all of the evidence.

 

We actually agree on a lot off this but we all know things don't happen in a vacuum and we also don't know what has turned up in this limited investigation.

This happens all the time to civilians, charges being filed this quickly so I am not sorry for Rolfe, he will still be able to mount his defense.

The murder charge can be amended before trial, I think murder might not be the correct charge but I don't have all of the info.

 

This is where I think some of the societal problems lie. If the officer was wrong in shooting the man, he should face some sort of charges. They shouldn't be above private citizens. If a private citizen not named Dick Cheney, intentionally and wrongfully shot a man they would face charges. I'm not positive they should be murder or manslaughter, etc. But he should face charges.

 

I think officers have a very tough job and have to make split second decisions. Sometimes they make the wrong one. Not everyone is cut out to be a police officer. On of my best friends is a lieutenant in the Houston PD. In his first year there he shot someone in a split second decision. The person did not die and the shooting was found to be justified after an investigation but it tore my friend up for a long time even though the person survived. He thought the guy was reaching for a gun and fired to protect himself and others who were around but he was not 100% sure the guy had a gun when he pulled the trigger. What he did was a a split second impulse that he has wrestled with in his mind for years even to this day almost 30 years later. He regretted not being 100% sure even though it turns out the guy did have a gun. Thankfully he has never had to fire his firearm again since that incident. Officers are humans too and humans make mistakes. I do not think there is any training that could truly simulate these life and death decisions they have to make in a split second. Some people are just not cut out for it. The Floyd incident was outright murder which is from what I have seen 100% consensus. Chauvin was a bad cop. There is no action I have seen so far by officer Rolfe in he events that led up to him shooting Brooks that would lead me to think he is a bad cop like Chauvin. He was extremely professional up until the foot chase and made a split second decision that I am sure he will regret even if he does not go to prison. All that being said, if he did actually indeed kick him then I do lose a lot of respect for him and think he should be punished accordingly but I do not think he should face charges for the shooting. Edit: He should not face charges for the shooting unless other evidence comes to light.

 

I agree. I don't think it classifies as a lethal firearm, but that's how Georgia's law states it. However, I think a suspect stealing an officer's taser does warrant the escalation of force to a handgun.

I brought up that case because many think an officer is not allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect. If a fleeing suspect is potentially dangerous to the public, an officer should be able to fire on him/her.

 

Georgia has specific laws against it and what about firing on a suspect if you are endangering others?

Every person is potentially dangerous to the public, how is Brooks that much more of threat with a empty Taser and him running away.

Just because he tangled with the officers and wildly fired a Taser does not make him some huge threat to the public.

If you shot a guin running away with a Taser because he fired it at you while running you would be charged with at least manslaughter why is this cop not held to a higher standard?

 

The law allows law enforcement to shoot a fleeing violent felon if they are a danger to others. Brooks is drunk and violent. He's a danger to the public.

If a guy shot a Taser at me, I'd shoot back. Wouldn't you?

 

No I would not fire a gun at guy who was running away from me and fired a Taser because there are several other ways to avoid being tased.

Another thing is I would not chase somebody if I thought I would be in danger.

Actual case law does not allow you to shoot just because he is a violent felon, Brooks being a violent Felon is sure being tossed around a lot.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[1]

It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.[2]:563-7

It's amazing that we don't hear a lot about other drunk people who have resisted arrest and fleeing being killed or shot.

If he was such a danger to the public why did they wait 40 minutes to arrest him?

 

Here are some goods reads about the right too shoot a fleeing felon, I admit the law has some grey area and could be applied in this case but I don't think the officer was or the public was in actual danger of serious harm.

https://apnews.com/fb33a7eb824b47c4...ack:-When-can-police-fire-on-fleeing-suspects

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/us/rayshard-brooks-force-law/index.html

 

The fundamental disagreement we have is whether we consider Brooks a public danger. In my opinion, he is. Here's why:

1. DWI. Anyone driving while intoxicated has a dangerous 2 ton battering ram.
2. He assaulted two police officers in his attempt to run.
3. He stole a taser from a police officer.
4. He fired said taser at a police officer.

Those are criminal violent acts Brooks committed.

Now for potential dangers, he has a dangerous weapon, is intoxicated, and is attempting to run from police. He very well could assault an innocent bystander to get away. That could be carjacking with the stolen taser or breaking into a house and taking hostages. Criminals have done those before when police are after them.

If I didn't think Brooks was dangerous, then yes, I'd agree that shooting him is criminal.

 

Anybody can potentially assault an innocent bystander.

To use that as a defense for deadly force is comical, Rolfe is the one who put innocent bystanders at risk . when he fired into occupied vehicle.

Since when is potentially a reason for deadly force?

 

I still don't think the shooting was justified but I am troubled that the DA seems to be rushing this for political reasons. I also think the charge is an overreach and is being made for political reasons.

This is a very tense time for the country but I agree with the other posters that a rushed process based on political considerations won't serve justice and likely make things worse.

 

Oh, I get it. I have friends that are in police and sheriff's departments. I am not saying their job is easy. I think they are asked to do way too much. That's one of the reasons I am in favor of the poorly named 'defund' movement. Let's limit their responsibilities and stop putting so many things on their shoulders. Let's farm those out to other branches of municipalities. Also their training focus should change to better equip them to handle these types of situations.

It's one of the reasons that even though I own guns, I don't think I would ever use them on another person even if they broke in to my home. I like who I am, and I know that if I shot someone for any reason it would change who I am. I don't want to do that. If I had to in order to save the life of my wife, then I would suffer that.

I agree that his training or perhaps the standard training let him down. Another reason that I support the 'defund' effort.

Let's start over and change how we train, the responsibilities these guys have and it is a win for them and the community in general.

 

He will not even be on trial until after Oct because that's the earliest a Grand Jury can convene.

Other people have been arrested and charged with much less evidence why is this a rushed process, not saying this is not politically motivated but these types of arrest happen every day all over the country, why should he be different because he is a cop?

Rolfe has everything available to him from any other citizen who is wrongly accused, probably more because he will most likely get help funding his defense.

There is nothing at all new about overcharging and arrest being politically motivated and as a cop Rolfe usually benefits from that.

Maybe it's not a rush and you just have not seen all of the evidence that could be true as well.

 

I do not agree with the defund movement part but I agree 100% with everything else.