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

If he had outstanding warrants wouldn't they have tried to arrest him for that and not the DWI? Wouldn't one of the first things they do is run his ID?

 

8 officers have resigned (since June 1)

https://www.11alive.com/article/new...ation/85-a6f165a8-45b0-46d9-8991-f9497ab1a2ac



https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...imanded-for-use-force/dOTu99Lym4SjkmXmkt0P8M/

Atlanta police on Monday released the disciplinary histories for both officers involved in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, revealing that one of them had previously been reprimanded for use of force involving a firearm.

Garrett Rolfe, the 27-year-old officer who was fired after shooting and killing Brooks on Friday night in a Wendy’s parking lot, received a written reprimand in 2017 due to the complaint. In his seven-year stint with the department, it was his only use-of-force complaint before Friday’s shooting.

The documents provided by police do not go into further detail, so the circumstances of the incident and reprimand remain unclear.

His file showed 12 other incidents, varying from vehicle accidents to citizens’ complaints. He was exonerated in nine of those internal investigations.

Two of the other incidents, which were both vehicle accidents, led to a written reprimand and an oral admonishment. An incident involving the discharge of a firearm in 2015 did not have a conclusion listed in his documents.

Officer Devin Brosnan, who was the first to arrive at the Wendy’s on Friday night, has no disciplinary history. He joined the department in 2018 and has been placed on administrative duty pending the GBI’s investigation into Brooks’ death, which is typical in officer-involved shooting investigations.

On Monday afternoon, police also released the 911 call made that night. The caller, a woman who worked at the Wendy’s, told the operator that she tried to wake up Brooks, who she suspected of being intoxicated.

“I tried to wake him up, but he’s parked dead in the middle of the drive-thru, so I don’t know what’s wrong with him,” the caller said.

She said Brooks briefly woke up amid her attempts, but he did not move and fell back asleep.

 

No I'm not suggesting letting any suspect go freely. I'm suggesting to choose the best time and circumstances to apprehend them. No criminals get out of going to jail or being held accountable for their offenses according to what I'm saying. They may go the next day instead of right away. Or they may go 30 minutes or several hours later. But they don't get out of going to jail. And resisting arrest and running away will only incur stiffer penalties.

That is true only of suspects who weren't originally apprehended for a violent offense.

That isn't accurate. I'm suggesting to choose a better time and circumstance for that arrest. Nobody gets out of being arrested.

If I resist arrest and run away but am not a threat to others, but cops arrest me in a few hours or the next day, or even in two days, how does that help me? Why would I have an incentive to do that? Especially because now that I'm going to be arrested, I will have additional charges filed against me that wouldn't have been filed in the first place.

If I stay out of jail for an extra day but then get arrested and go to jail for an extra year, or end up with jail time at all when I might have gotten off with just a fine or community service before, there is no incentive to add resisting arrest or assaulting an officer to my offenses.

Yes there is. He wasn't wanted for a violent offense. His only use of violence came when being put in cuffs. He didn't aim the taser at an innocent or anyone else. He made no violent moves towards anyone. Almost all violence is for a reason (anger, self-defense, attempt to escape police, get something from someone, disagreement, fights during sports, etc.) Almost none are for no reason.

 

I am a minority and i won't say if i am black or another race. It doesn't make a difference because i seen enough from many sides of the world to realize Racism/Tribalism whatever is, exists.

The point of the post is "Human Beings" under stressful decisions are human beings. A Cop will forever be in a position to always possible make a mistake because he is a human being. Because a Cop job is to watch out for criminals he/she will always be faced with situations that puts him in this duress. I can't imagine another job being worse, than serving in the Army and being deployed in a nation that wants to kill you everyday.

Does that mean a Cop shouldn't be responsible for his/her actions? No, i am not saying this. I am saying he/her should be responsible after facts are reviewed by people more qualified than youtube/facebook watchers who only look at the 6 second feed.
.

I wish we had ways to mimic dreams so we can see the outcome of crazy idea's.

1. All robot police force
2. All minority police force
3. All White Police force
4. Force all politicians to server the police force for 2 year
5. Force All students after 18 to server police force for 1 year
6. No guns for police force
7. Police force wearing panda uniforms

I bet after doing all this, you will found out #1 is probably the best way to avoid human errors...because we all know "Human Beings can be stupid"

but #1..means Terminator or Robocop and this is where we are headed in the near future. Drones/video surveillance these recent events will drive more innovation to avoid these type of situations. Then we can all be in Will Smith iRobot movie world.

Peace, love and respect is needed more than ever.

 

We need an all black police force, then who you gonna hate

 

That's exactly what I thought. They stop pursuing an arrest. The suspect delays their arrest until found again and the time is more convenient for them.

This is the problem. You're thinking rationally. Nobody who resists arrest is thinking rationally.

Actually, you are not thinking rationally because you believe people who resist arrest are thinking rationally.

Right now, suspects know all of that and they still resist and run knowing that they'll get caught one way or another. You're saying they won't be more likely to resist and run knowing that cops will eventually have to stop their pursuit.

He aimed the taser at an innocent cop. He made violent moves towards two cops. He could have used violence to get a car from someone. My point is that nobody could say that he wasn't a threat to anyone else. It is more likely based on what he just did that he was a threat to other people.

 

Agree 100%. Two officers should have been enough to subdue Brooks if the 2nd officer had been more assertive (read more engaged not necessarily physical). I believe they were completely caught offguard when the taser had no effect on Brooks.

I agree that the shooting is not justifiable. As I pointed out Rolfe knew Brooks had no lethal weapon so there was no justification for the use of deadly force. Rolfe's handling of his weapon during pursuit was a result of his training as my cousin pointed out. He stated that that's what he's done in similar circumstances. I still maintain that Rolfe paniced when he saw Brooks getting away and fired without thinking. Both officers knew they were being watched by civilians and didn't want to look bad by letting Brooks escape.

Another point I didn't raise is about Brooks' intoxication. He was legally intoxicated, passed out behind the wheel of his car in a drive-through lane blocking traffic. NO police officer will let anyone in those circumstances simply leave their car and walk away. Ain't gonna happen. What would stop Brooks from going to his sister's house, get another car and drive again? Just imagine the uproar if he's involved in a fatal accident. All you'd hear is about how the police "let" him walk away only to drive drunk. It's the same if you are intoxicated and pull over off a street or highway to "sleep it off". If an officer finds you in such a state you will be charged with DUI because, well you were driving under the influence.

 

No, you misunderstood me. My cousin was under the impression that Brooks' reaction was that of someone with outstanding warrants as he'd experienced such a situation himself while making an arrest.

 

I mean where was he gonna go. He was drunk and tired. They easily could have tailed this guy with little to no chance of further escalation. There was no reason to think he could harm someone before being apprehended.

 

There is no incentive to resist arrest. The suspect only gets worse circumstances.

You put forward the idea that a less traumatic arrest scenario would somehow lead people to all of a sudden be encouraged to resist arrest. We see what happened when they didn't pursue a more strategic method.

 

I don’t necessarily buy the fact the cop was trying to assert his dominance, shot out of anger, or wanted to apprehend at all costs...my theory is that he either 1) was trained to fire when a suspect fired a taser because it means the suspect is willing to disable you and steal your pistol, or 2) a suspect turning and pointing an object at you has the possibility (however remote) of being a firearm.

No rational person would behave the way Brooks did. It’s such a unique situation and almost any other case of police brutality involves a suspect who has already been wrestled to the ground or otherwise detained. Of course in a vacuum we all agree that resisting arrest doesn’t deserve a death sentence, but this shooting took place in the equivalent of a split second. Again, my initial reaction is to blame the training if anything. I have a hard time molding the officer’s actions as a display of malice.

 

While I agree in theory here. How many times have we seen video of cops walking up to a vehicle and getting pumped full of lead ?

They often come into contact with armed individuals or people with warrants , violent felons who fight / shoot / run / drive away at high speeds endangering lots of lives.

Thew real world facts just don't match the theory. Unless you don't want them rounding up people with warrants , felons with firearms , fugitives from the law and the like .... here's your ticket have a nice day.

It's not the broken tail light that requires the gun .... its usually the actions of the person in the vast majority of cases - George Floyd being an outlier which is why it got so much support nation wide - because we all know what we saw was just plain wrong.

 

About the only country you're not getting shot for that is the UK and that's because their police don't have guns, the rest you're getting shot, in Australia you're getting shot at the same point, in France the depends which police force, they have two, the national about the same point, the gendarmarie would have shot you well before that point, and so on and so forth through almost any country.

 

You mean cyborgs

 

So had you sent a "response team" that was unarmed .... and they show up and the individual in question is armed - then what ?

So had you sent a "response team" that was unarmed .... this guy fights with them , escapes. He's a fugitive felon who's potentially armed - its highly likely he does something else to further his escape attempt , say carjack / kidnap / steal a car. - Now what ?

This is a case that we're complaining about the cop protecting not only himself , but bystanders from potential harm from a multiple time convicted violent felon who has proven beyond any doubt that he will resort to any means necessary to escape .... and we're making a damn martyr out of the dude.

The only thing wrong with this case is the timing of it in relation to current events , otherwise it never woulda made the news.

 

No i wouldn't feel differently if i were a cop as my wife and other family members are and i have asked there perspective on this matter as with other cases just like this one and the answers have all pretty much been the same it doesn't make since to shot at someone running away from you.

 

I can see your point on having a additional response force to come in and deescalate the issue.

 

There is a reason why police procedure is almost never to engage in high-speed chases with cars. Instead, they hang back, drive slowly so as not to pressure the other driver into doing something more dangerous and causing more loss of life. Now a criminal with a car is more deadly than a drunk man running with a taser. Yet, the police have determined that it is best to hang back and make use of superior training and resources to take the car out of commission. The runaway driver doesn't make a getaway. The driver is caught and arrested.

Police could use similar tactics in these situations. Nobody would have incentive to resist arrest just because the police caught them at a slightly slower pace. The police are safer, they don't damage their image, and law and order is better served.

 

You might not understand and that's when I'll let my hand do the talking punk!

 

Been thinking about this case a bit, and I guess it's just not the hill I want to die on. Shooting the man in the back, even after all that chaos, was excessive force. But it's hard for me to say that officers in an ideal police force would not have done likewise. Hard to say, if I was a juror, that a reasonable person would not have done the same as the officer, even as I recognize that what he did was wrong.

However, the part that bothers me is how this shooting got started. Brooks drove to the Wendy's drunk surely, but he wasn't witnessed driving. When they went to cuff him, was the plan to pursue a prosecution for drunk driving for a person not driving? Or are they just counting on the DA to negotiate from a DUI to a guilty plea for public intoxication? What does that help? Is there a smarter way cities can deal with nonviolent offenses than sending armed men to physically detain perpetrators?