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

Once he is off the ground and disengaged the point of thinking his life is threatened is moot and I agree if I was on the ground I would feel the same way but at the time of the shooting none of that applies.

What does commiting 2 felonies have to do with the fact he could have possibly felt his life was in threat by a guy running away?

None of his explanation really makes sense when the facts are looked at his being on the ground has no bearing since he was not on the ground and not being threatened when he shot him.

I am sorry I just don't see where he brought any other information other than cops fear for their lives once they are on the ground and that has no bearing on the shooting other than the officer was pissed when he got up and acted on emotion.

He is in my opinion victim blaming by bringing up the 2 felonies he had committed during the altercation and we have to remember the officer was not alone.

I really don't see much of a grey area even you saw that the Taser had all ready been discharged once he fired his weapon, what is grey about a used Taser and the guy is running away?

 

A defense attorney is going to be able to defend this fairly easily IMO -- charges will probably be filed because of our current situation, but I don't think a prosecutor would normally touch this case.

 

Which is a huge problem if that's what law enforcement is going to base their training and justification. This is the exact kind of thinking that needs to be rooted out. It is why starting over from the ground up is gaining traction.

Now, I agree that it was a violent offense. And I believe that once apprehended he should face charges for that violence.

But the perp, despite that violence, was no longer a threat to the officer's life. If law enforcement isn't going to make that differentiation in these cases then the community should continue to demand disbanding the old system and rebuilding another.

 

The two felonies have to do with assessment of what sort of threat Brooks might be to public safety. What the sheriff is saying is that if the LEO believe that Brook's willingness to assault them (and they considered that assault life threatening) and take a weapon from them means that he could be more dangerous than previously thought.

As others have noted and one thing I fully agree on even without the altercation they shouldn't have just let Brooks go on his own. That he had already driven to Wendy's drunk and likely would've kept on driving if he didn't pass out makes it hard for me to see how they could just take him at his word. I think it was the right thing to do to take him into custody. Where it get's grey to me is given the fight and taking the taser what is the reasoning to escalate to lethal force. From watching the video I am convinced the decision to go to lethal force was before Brooks even shot the taser. From what the sheriff is saying it might've been sooner than that by the time they were fighting on the ground Rolfe might've felt then that it lethal force was needed as if Brooks was willing to fight that way on the ground he was essentially willing to use lethal force on Rolfe and possibly others.

That isn't necessarily exonerating for Rolfe since he shot him when they were off the ground but it is a very interesting piece of information.

 

This case will swing on what is reasonable use of lethal force. LE have an advantage because the standard for them is what would a reasonable LEO do in that situation. Testimony like what this Sheriff said will be very influential on this case and from listening to this I think the odds of a successful prosecution are going to be tough.

I don't agree with that and if this was a civilian I think it would be a pretty good chance for a conviction.

I totally agree though this points to the need to for different and better training. At the minimum I very strongly feel Rolfe and Brosnan did a terrible job trying to take Brooks into custody. As the sheriff says they should've cuffed him quickly. It never should've gotten to the point where Rolfe has to even consider drawing his firearm.

 

No more cheeseburger.

This is why fast food must be regulated to only waking hours instead of twilight!

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...s-disciplined-use-force-firearm-2016-n1231163

Not sure if the cop should be charged, but if you have 5 complaints maybe you should be fired.

 

ok

 

Sadly that is the case. We need to make reforms so that it is easier to successfully prosecute these types of cases.

 

That and the mindset drilled into the cops that a suspect can't be allowed to flee under any circumstances -- especially car pursuits.

 

It's a lot of arrests can be on a late-night in the fast food drive thru-line.

Wendy's can be a knee-ga killa!

 

That's exactly the argument, and why there are policies that allow this. Not saying its right...also not saying its necessarily wrong. In this case, especially with another officer there...and that he'd already used the stun gun I think...it seemed excessive.

They also have to consider whether said person is a danger to society. I do think they overuse this...but what happens if say, they let someone go in a situation like this, and he breaks into a house and then kills someone? Suppose that someone is another black person. Is everyone going to think that's the right policy then?

Yes, it was. But officer got fired because of the George Floyd case. However, I don't see any charges stemming from this one...and if there are, I suspect it will be hard to get a guilty verdict.

 

Pedophile.

 

My understanding is that you can use deadly force to stop someone from prior felonies from escaping in some states, but it doesn't count for the felonies made in an attempt to escape. So the punch to the officers face should not be considered a felony that the cops can use to justify lethal force.

 

Boss man gonna give ya a tornado punch.

Then handcuff time and take yo cheeseburger!

 

Three o' clock press conference by Fulton County DA just announced. I'm expecting charges of manslaughter.

 

Is that a standard for use of force or for charging? Obviously Brooks can't be charged anymore with felonies but according to the sheriff from Georgia he raised that as a reason for escalating use of force. Since that is an LE In Georgia it sounds like that consideration applies.

 

For use of lethal force but it varies by state, if you're really interested I could try to dig up where I saw it but would take some time as I am crunching on a project right now