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

Arrest should not have been the first bullet in the chamber
The feeling that because they showed up . . they had to arrest someone is a problem .
You had his car
You had his license. . . .

Tow the Car . . .Send him Home . .. . no danger to anyone

Rocket River

 

There are no Black Police officers. . . There are no White Police Officers
Have you not heard. . . .there are only Blue Lives

Rocket River

 

So in most states, if you are passed out drunk in a vehicle that is either on or the keys are readily accessible to you, you are guilty of DWI. The main standard is proving “actual physical control” since they can’t always catch you in the act of driving.

 

What would have happened to those cops if they had initially let him walk home, had let him run off after the initial struggle, or let him run after firing the taser at the officer. For the first question remember they were called out because the man was passed out cold in a busy drive through so a supervisor may have taken notice of the 30 minutes spent on scene.

 

This idea that it's either let Brooks go or shoot him is very problematic. In my view most of this failure is on the two LEO for failing to properly take him into custody and losing their weapon. My own view is Rolfe should've continued pursuing him on foot Brosnan should backed him up and radioed ahead for backup. Understandable that is difficult to do but this is why there are fitness requirements. Just escalating to lethal force without an immediate lethal threat seems excessive.

 

If the the fitness requirements were higher like USMC level, then there wouldn't be enough cops.

 

I saw an interesting point the other day -- it takes about 8 years to practice law, 1.5 years to become a barber, and around 6 months of training to enforce the law.

 

This is where I agree with many of the ideas being put forward. A smaller but better trained and better compensated police force I think will greatly improve things. As part of that training means better physical fitness. If LEO can't physically keep up with suspects or even worse resorting to lethal force because they lack the physical ability to subdue suspects any other way we are in very deep trouble.

 

People seem to be ignoring this even after you have said it multiple times.

This makes all the difference.

To me it's a simple question of who was in danger when the cop shot and from what I see from the video nobody was in danger at the point of the shooting.

 

A reasonable person?

Do you know he was shot after he fired the Tazer at him?

Rolfe was chasing Brooks and switched the weapon to his left hand so he could draw his pistol. This was before Brooks had tried to shoot him with the taser. That tells me that LEO Rolfe had already decided to go to lethal force not out of reacting to the pop of Brooks firing the taser.

What's reasonable about using a gun when the suspect is running away and . he only has a Tazer and you have backup.

How is any of this reasonable nobody was in danger because the Tazer was all ready discharged and the suspect was still running away.

None of this is reasonable IMO.

 

The perpretrator got stuck in line over night because Wendy had a meat storage due to covid-19.


Wendy never got enough beef and bacon but they called cops on his Ashe and now his Ashe is grass!

 

Can someone ban this ********er already?

 

cops shot him in the buttocks!?
It was like a scene out of a movie.
The boss don't play that!

 

As I pointed out in my followup post: if the police find you intoxicated behind the wheel of a car - even if it's parked - they can and will arrest you for driving under the influence. After all Brooks' car didn't drive itself to the Wendy's. And eveyone would agree that a major priority of law enforcement has to be getting drunk drivers off the street as their actions behind the wheel often prove fatal to innocent parties. No, the police were justified in attempting to arrest Brooks. It was Brooks' actions that caused the situation to escalate the way it did. IMO it's more likely those officers lost it because Brooks dared to challenge their authority as police in the US are trained to react harshly to anyone (especially people of color) who fail to acknowledge said authority. After all, policing in the US is more about control than public service.

 

Here's a take from a Georgia County Sheriff who's opinion the shooting is justified. He raises some compelling points and is worth listening too even if you feel it is unjustified.

One interesting thing he raises is that if LEO are on the ground he considers their lives to be in danger. Perhaps it is my background that I don't consider that and have been faulting the LEO for their failure to control Brooks. This might explain why Rolfe decided to go to lethal force.

 

What compelling points did he make?

The officer was no longer on the ground anymore.

He even said the Taser was non lethal and he left out the fact that the Taser had been discharged before the shooting.

He completely lost me when he started with that bullshit that we are teaching young black youth that the actions of Brooks are ok, who is doing that?

Once I saw his jacket I should have known he was suspect but I watched it because you said it was worth listening too I strongly disagree.

How does it explain Rolfes decision to go lethal force when he was not on the ground anymore.

I think he was auditioning for some of that Fox news money.

 

If a LEO is by himself and is on the ground from an advancing opponent, then I would agree.

That is not the case in this instance. A person wanted for a nonviolent offense was running and there was at least one other LEO present and available to help

 

He was talking about being on the ground in general as being not a place that LEO want to be. That once they are on the ground they consider that to be a situation where there life is threatened. His argument is that once Brooks started fighting with them on the ground that is possibly when Rolfe decided that Brook represented a threat to his safety and those around them.

I had never heard that LEO would consider being on the ground as a threat to their life but if that is something that has been drilled into it might go away to explaining the situation.

His other point that Brook had shown a willingness to commit two felonies in the process of his escape is a compelling point and one that I considered.

Regarding whether this sheriff is just looking for Fox News Money I think that is a rather unfair assessment considering he did point out the how horrible the situations with George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery were and didn't offer any of the defenses of the killers in those cases that we've heard. His point about this teaching young black men might color his opinion but I don't think is relevant to the facts of the case.

Note I'm not changing my opinion that I think this shooting was unjustified just based on that one interview but this is a very gray case and I think it's important to listen to counterarguments. In this case you have an LEO from the area who also happens to be black. I think he presents an interesting opinion and brought some information that I wasn't aware of.

 

What the sheriff is saying is that at the moment Brooks started fighting it is no longer a nonviolent offense. He points out that Brooks committed two felonies with one of them being assault in his escape.