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

I believe someone having the intent to tase you is grounds for that individual to get tased himself hence why if the officer didn't switch from taser to gun, his action would be justifiable.

 

If he fired the taser we would not be having this discussion that's the whole point.

So now you are not arguing that he was justified to shoot because Floyd fired a taser at him?

 

I'm saying the the officer had a justifiable reason to restrain Rayshard the moment he turned around and aimed a stolen taser at the officer.

I want to see the defense team's justification to switch from taser to gun. That is the critical aspect of this case that will determine whether a conviction happened.

 

Why did you ask me this?

He was running away while turning his body to fire the stolen taser. To me that's a justifiable reason to tase him. I assume you would believe it's a justifiable reason for an officer to shoot a individual who is running away while firing their gun behind them towards the officers.

Nobody is saying he did not have cause to restrain Brooks, why is that even a point of discussion

You sure have moved the goalpost since you said this.

"I'm claiming that the officer believed lethal force was justifiable as soon as the perp turned his body around to aim a weapon that can render his partner defenseless while also potentially creating an opportunity where the perp can steal his partner's firearm while he is locked up"

Or you claiming this was somehow a split second decision.

 

The law in Arkansas...and I’m sure it’s the same in Georgia due to pressure from MADD over the years...is that all drunk drivers must be arrested and prosecutors must bring charges. I could dismiss a murder charge against someone but not a DWI. If I felt like I didn’t have enough evidence, I would still have to go to trial and just not put on evidence. Any other case you can drop pre-trial.

Someone posted earlier on here that they knew of a cop who kept apologizing to someone while they were writing them up for DWI. Very accurate. Same thing happened to one of my roommates. He got a DWI for driving from a bar down the street back to his apartment in college. The cop started kicking the ground and cussing because he didn’t want to arrest him but had to

 

I agree with Jayzers and Fchowd. I think the idea they should've let Brooks go is very problematic. Given he already drove drunk to the Wendy's and would've kept on if he hadn't passed out there is no way of knowing what he would do. He might've just walked to his sister's house borrowed her car and tried to drive home.

Rolfe had his taser out and was in pursuit. Both LEO have radios and can radio ahead for back up. Brooks didn't need to die but they also didn't need to let him go.

 

Maybe a unconditional statement like "always" is not the proper term to use on my part. But I know there is a maximum blood alcohol level one could have before they are breaking the law so I'm assuming he was over the limit. You are legally allowed to have a couple of drinks at a bar and go home as long as you are under the limit,

 

I guess my overall point is this situation has far more grey than the Floyd murder.

 

You are certainly right about that, FC. Hopefully they can put off the trial long enough for tensions to calm down.

 

Right. Assuming there’s probable cause that they were in fact driving under the influence, they’re supposed to write it up and the legislature has taken away basically all discretion because so many people got breaks back in the day and continued to drive wasted

 

He said his friend dropped him of at the Wendy's but I don't know if that was true or even relevant.

They also never told him why he being arrested.

The 1st officer on the scene was not gonna arrest him from reports I read but I don't even know why this is a topic of discussion really, the issue was the shooting.

 

So what do you think of the facts of the case?

Was the officer justified in your opinion?

 

I like all the intelligent arguments and counter points by posters on this thread. This case is certainly not black and white It will be interesting to see what the court decides

 

-Decided to issue warrants in this case today

-Question is asked, why were we able to charge this case now? I want to explain we have already had an opportunity to speak to 3 witnesses in this case. We've had an opportunity to conduct interviews with 7 other witnesses. We've also had an opportunity to view 8 video tapes, 2 Atlanta body cam tapes, 2 Atlanta PD dash cam tapes, Wendy's surveillance tape, 3 citizen's cell phone videos. With many of the videos, we had the opportunity to enhance the videos so we could get a better look.

-Opportunity to view physical evidence; Chevy Trail Blazer was a vehicle in the line at Wendy's on the night of this incident. It received a shot from Officer Rolfe's gun. Opportunity, now with the GBI, to view that Trail Blazer. Opportunity to inspect the crime scene; conducted canvas of the area; started investigation at 1:15am Saturday morning; been working on this case around the clock since that time.

-Spent some time examining the taser evidence in this case; examined & possessed the 2 tasers used; opportunity to examine the taser logs that are prepared as the tasers are used; consulted with a taser expert from the company that manufactures the tasers.

-Received preliminary autopsy; preliminary ballistics reports; in reaching our conclusions today, worked with both GBI & Atlanta PD. 4th time we've asked that arrest warrants are issued in a case before an indictment; 40th prosecution of police officers for misconduct in our county; 9th time prosecuted a homicide case committed by a police officer; 8 of those involved black males, 1 black female

-In reaching our decision, some considerations we considered important. One thing we noted from our evaluation was that Mr. Brooks on the night of this incident was calm, cordial and really displayed a cooperative nature; while Mr. Brooks was slightly impaired, his demeanor during this incident was almost jovial. Also we noted he received many instructions from the officers and was asked many questions, some repeatedly, but for 41 minutes and 17 seconds, he followed their instruction, answered the questions; 4th thing we noted is that Mr. Brooks was never informed that he was under arrest for DUI. This is a requirement of the APD when one is charged with DUI; the APD's own procedures require that person is informed immediately that they are under arrest; then he was grabbed from the rear by Officer Rolfe who made an attempt to physically restrain him after the 41:17 discussion. We concluded and considered it as one of our important considerations that Mr. Brooks never presented himself as a threat. At the beginning, he was peacefully sleeping in his car. After he was awakened by the officer, he was cooperative and was directed to move his car to another location; he calmly moved his car; Mr. Brooks was asked whether he had a weapon; he indicated he did not; without any resistance, he passed his DL to the officers and the officers asked Mr. Brooks whether he would consent to a pat down or body search; Mr. Brooks allowed them to search him and the search yielded no weapon; we found it was of interest when the officers patted Mr. Brooks down, they noticed there was a bulge in his pants; they did not pull that item out of his pocket; they took Mr. Brooks word that bulge represented a number of dollar bills; Mr. Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41:17

-This is another consideration we discovered as we evaluated this case; once Mr. Brooks was shot, there is an Atlanta policy that requires officers to provide timely medical attention to Mr. Brooks or anyone injured. After Mr. Brooks was shot, for some period of 2 minutes and 12 seconds, there was no medical attention applied to Mr. Brooks; when we examined the video tape & in our discussions with witnesses, what we discovered is during the 2:12, Officer Rolfe kicked Mr. Brooks while he laid on the ground, fighting for his life; secondly, we were able to see Officer Brosnan stood on Mr. Brooks shoulder while he was struggling for his life; we were able to conclude based on the way these officers conducted themselves while Mr. Brooks was lying there, the demeanor of the officers immediately after the shooting did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks but their actions really reflected other kinds of emotions

-As we're drawing our legal conclusion, we were led by the 2 foundational cases in this matter, one being Tennessee vs. Garner, what that case points out is when an 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 an immediate threat of death or of serious, physical injury to that officer. The next foundational case we used is Graham vs. Connor, which says that this test is based upon that of a reasonable officer on the scene & not the individual officer but a reasonable officer on the scene; we've concluded at the time Mr. Brooks was shot, he did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or officers.

-(Photo) What this photograph illustrates is the point that Officer Rolfe at this point was firing a taser and this is Mr. Brooks, who was firing a taser as well. I don't know if you can see it clearly but the prongs from the taser were actually fired above Officer Rolfe's head. I'd like for you to also look at the position of Officer Rolfe and Mr. Brooks that they are here next to this red automobile.

-If we look at the next photograph, we'll see the positions of both parties, they've changed. Mr. Brooks has now moved away from his original position and we estimate the distance is about 12 feet and Officer Rolfe has moved about 10 feet from the position in what is our exhibit number one. The second video or second still shot shows the very instance the shot was fired into the back of Mr. Brooks; we've also calculated the distance and the distance that they are apart at that time was 18 feet 3 inches at the time this shot was fired; based upon that information, we've concluded Mr. Brooks was running away that the time the shot was fired; Mr. Brooks was shot twice in the back. One was a center shot to the back that penetrated his heart; done by a 9mm glock

-One of the things we relied upon in our conclusion is something that is called under the law 'excited utterance'; that's when someone makes an immediate statement; because it's made without the ability to consult with counsel or think about it, under the law, it's considered highly reliable; at the time the shot was fired, the utterance made by Officer Rolfe was "I got him.".

 

-We also noted Officer Rolfe was firing a taser at Mr. Brooks. The City of Atlanta SOP prohibits officers from firing tasers at someone who is running away. The City of Atlanta says you cannot even fire a taser at someone who is running away, so you certainly can't fire a hand gun at someone running away.

-In addition to our findings, the Atlanta mayor & PD concluded that Officer Rolfe's actions were excessive and in violation of APD's SOP. After their analysis that the actions were excessive, Officer Rolfe was fired.

-We also concluded Rolfe was aware that the taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and once fired twice, it presented no danger to him or any other persons.

-We've had something quite remarkable happen in this case. It involves testimony of the other officer, Officer Brosnan. He has now become a state's witness. He has decided to testify on behalf of the state in this case. What he has said to us that is within a matter of days, he plans to make a statement regarding the culpability of Officer Rolfe. He indicated he is not psychologically willing to give that statement today. He has admitted he was in fact standing on Mr. Brooks body immediately after the shooting.

-These are the charges filed today. 11 charges against Officer Rolfe.
-Felony Murder (Underlying felony - aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) Life without parole or death penalty
-Also charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; this is a count charging him for the shooting of Mr. Brooks; 1-20 years
-Third aggravated assault account is for the shooting towards or in the direction of Mr. Melvin Evans; Mr. Evans was the person who was seated in the car(white Chevy Trail Blazer); this automobile is the place Mr. Evans and his 2 companions were driving and a shot was fired
-With count four against Officer Rolfe, aggravated assault for firing a weapon in or of the direction of Danielle Killions(sp?) who was in the passenger side front seat of the car
-Count five is aggravated assault charge for shooting towards or in the direction of Michael Perkins; Mr. Perkins was seated in the rear of this same vehicle
-Charge for criminal damage for shooting into that vehicle
-Charged with 7 violations of office; each carries 1-5 year sentence; these are violations of his oath of office for City of Atlanta; arresting Mr. Brooks for DUI with immediately informing him; shooting a taser at Mr. Brooks while he was running away; excessive force when shooting a firearm at Mr. Brooks; failure to render timely medical aid
-8th is for kicking Mr. Brooks; 1-20 years
-Charges for Officer Brosnan(3 charges)
-Aggravated assault for standing or stepping on Mr. Brooks shoulder; 1-20 years
-In conversations with Officer Brosnan, he has admitted he stood on the body of Mr. Brooks; he says he believes he was standing on Mr. Brooks arm
-Charged with additionally 2 violations of oath (one for standing on the shoulder, that is an unauthorized weaponless control technique which the City of Atlanta prohibits; 2nd violation was for the failure to render timely medical aid)

-Arrest warrants already signed
-Asking both officers to surrender themselves by 6:00pm tomorrow
-Because Officer Brosnan is now becoming a cooperating witness, we are asking the court to grant a bond of $50,000 and allow Officer Brosnan to sign that bond; he would become one of the first officers to indicate that he is willing to testify against someone in his own department
-Officer Rolfe, we are recommending no bond; if given a bond, that would be done by one of our Superior Court Judges but because of the severity of his act and following that act kicking Mr. Brooks, we ask he not be granted bond.

Elaborate on this being the first time a LEO here in Atlanta has decided to come forward they will speak against a partner in the department?

We've had about 40 of these cases we've prosecuted and I don't remember a circumstance where we've had an officer, particular in a case this important, step forward & say they'll cooperate with the state. We really appreciative of Officer Brosnan. Hopefully that means this can be resolved in a much quicker manner but we appreciate his courage for standing up.

At what point did Officer Brosnan decide to testify?

We spoke to him last night and again today. Sometime today he made the decision he would serve as a cooperating witness.

What did Officer Brosnan say about that night?

He initially told us he thought the situation was well in hand and the situation was calm but he was not an experienced DUI investigator so that's why he called Officer Rolfe in. He indicated he was somewhat surprised it accelerated into an actual arrest. He thought the situation might have been resolved before then. When he decided to describe what happen once the rassling took place on the ground, you can tell he became a lot more emotional. At that point, he said he needed additional time to explain to us his feelings about the shooting that took place. He did tell us he approached the body afterwards and did in fact "stand on the arm of Mr. Brooks." We asked why? He said something to the effect of he really didn't know what was going on and he was trying to ensure Mr. Brooks did not have a weapon. We found that kind of strange. Mr. Brooks already displayed to them the fact he had no weapon.

There are other use of force cases in your office. What can you say to the families looking for closure? They see this, this is getting all the attention.

We've been working diligently to prepare those cases but this case has something many others don't. One, we have video tape. We don't have body cams, dash cams. We've spent an inordinate amount of time and large sums of money trying to recreate crime scenes. Police officers will not give us statements and that's why we're surprised, almost shocked, Brosnan has come forward. We do not get statements to assist us from the officers involved. One thing I'm hoping we'll pass not only in our state but entire country is we need to change the law. Prosecutors should be allowed to indict cases directly without a grand jury when they involve police shootings. The question you asked me, I'd say to those folks waiting, if I had authority to sign the indictments, I'd sign them today. I'm hoping, our legislature is in session, if you want to improve police misconduct, why don't you give DAs the right to proceed with a case without waiting for a grand jury. That's particular important now during the virus because it looks like right now, we won't convene a grand jury in Fulton County until October. That's a long time. I wish we could do it today.

Wait until GBI finish their reviews?

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.

Why not in this case?

We didn't need it. As we pointed out, the evidence was available. We've been working with the GBI. It was a different circumstance. Once you get the video tapes, it places the case on a different level of being investigated.

You said he was not a threat to the officers. Is it the fact he was running away, that after the struggle he was not a threat?

That's just one of the things. The whole casual conversation, the fact they patted him down with no weapon, even the body language between the officers & Mr. Brooks was very casual, very informal, nothing seemed to happened that would indicate that he was of some danger. At the critical point of the shooting, what the evidence shows is he was 18 feet 3 inches away, his back was turned and I believe a reasonable person would conclude he was not an immediate threat at that time.

Your warrant/indictment vs. qualified immunity and should it be changed?

I have put together a list of 9 recommendations. #8 is we ought to eliminate both sovereign immunity and qualified immunity for cases involving police shootings. We got to do it. My barometer that says to me that something is wrong with that immunity, even our good friend Clarence Thomas says something is wrong with it. When Clarence Thomas says it's bad, you know it's probably pretty bad. We need to change it so families of victims, the way the law stands now, they don't stand a good chance if they decided to pursue some lawsuit.

What happens next?

The way the law stands now, we'll wait for an indictment. We've already scheduled 7 cases that are scheduled to be presented to grand juries before this one. I'd suspect we're talking about January or February when we'd get a chance to present it to a grand jury. I believe that should be eliminated. I don't think we should wait. Why can't the DA sign the indictment and let the case move forward?

...

You said Officer Brosnan will be giving a statement. Is that to you or a public statement?

To the DA's office.

Officer Brosnan already put out a statement saying you're moving too quickly.

I would expect that & I'm not surprised by that. We've already interviewed him twice and can only tell you what he's said to us.

Attorney for Officer Rolfe put out a detailed statement. Part of it said the taser Brooks took was Brosnan's; also Rolfe thought what was a gun shot coming at him when he saw the flash supposedly from the taser and thought he was being fired at from a hand gun. Any response?

I don't. I stand by what we said today. That's the reasonable interpretation. If there's litigation in court, what we contend will be proven to be the correct view of what happened.

 

Don't know the law in georgia but in Texas you can use deadly force to stop a felony. Assaulting a cop is a felony.


Instead of charging all these cops with murder just take away their guns. No one here likely heard of this cop who "thought" he was using a taser but shot a guy in jail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/pa-police-taser-gun.html

No charges for that **** probably because bullet trap was white but "whoops" doesn't fly. Take away their guns.

 

What felony was the cop stopping?

He was no longer fighting with the officer when shot.

 

I answered that. In the video it looks as if he was shot when he fired the taser.

 

You need to look again, the officer switched from the Taser to the gun after he fired the Taser.

From the press conference today.

-We also concluded Rolfe was aware that the taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and once fired twice, it presented no danger to him or any other persons.

 

So to you are saying he was pointing a taser at him, not shooting one. Pointing an unloaded weapon same difference.

Nuance is great to argue on the internet but if you want to save lives you will fight to get the guns out of cops hands.