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

Two things about your scenario and effects the answer. 1. Officers should be trained to handle situations better than regular citizens.

2. The person with the taser in your scenario was approaching and not fleeing. Also did of other armed friends backing me up?

 

I can agree to that. I think any punishment these officers should face should be towards their careers and not through criminal prosecution means.

 

He was disarmed of his car. His blood alcohol content was only slightly above the legal limit.

 

It's not a matter of better or worse. I'm not saying anything he did was okay. I am saying he wasn't an immediate threat to anyone's life.

 

Criminally prosecuting is a severe mistake here that is going to backfire especially without doing a proper investigation first.

Because months from now when the officer is most likely aquited, there will be a new wave of outrage and protests and to add insult to injury, the officer will most likely file a law suit towards the DA's office for filing charges without a proper investigation which is going to add more fuel to the outrage. This is going to be bad months from now. The DA is only thinking in the present.

 

Then you factor in the fact that he's crazy enough to attack and tackle armed officers and steal their taser, yes, I think he was a danger to the public.

People who have the cojones to tackle cops and steal their weapons because they were rightfully detained because they were drunk driving are a danger to society. I wouldn't expect reasonable and rational cops letting him run off.

 

It's just my opinion that the killing was a wrongful action, according to the Texas Penal Code, IDK what's up in Georgia.

I wouldn't have used deadly force in that scenario. It still is very clear when I was in the academy, when representatives from the AG's office came in and told us they never wanted to see us in court, so be 100% sure as your freedom and the lives of others are dependent on it.

 

It is going to be a huge issue at a later date. Unless the DA can pack the jury there is no way the officer gets convicted of murder.

 

I think he should have been charged for what he did to the cops and held accountable. Anyone who is crazy enough to kill their spouse, kill someone they were in an argument with or thought cheated with their spouse should also be held accountable. But they aren't a threat to other people's lives despite their crazy dangerous decisions. People who speed, steal cars, drive recklessly, text while driving are also threats to other people's lives, but they don't get shot should they run away even if they run away with the vehicle they were using which is a deadly weapon. The reason is that police have found they can apprehend them in ways that are safer for everyone.

 

I've watched this video about a million times now and I still have mixed feelings on it.

There's not many times when I come to the conclusion of "this is a grey area and I can both justify and de-legitimize the actions of the officer", but this is one of those moments.

A guy who just assaulted the cops, stole their weapon, used it on them, and is now fleeing is indeed a dangerous person to both the police and the general public. Additionally the calculus on just how dangerous or not dangerous the situation is and how justified the officers are changes if they 1) knew of his prior violent offenses or 2) had thoroughly searched the suspect and determined him to be unarmed.

Do I wish I lived in a timeline where the officer had not used his firearm on Brooks in response to the taser shot? Yes (of course that assumes Brooks would not have gone on to endanger or harm anyone else). But the time period between the taser being fired and the gun going off is literally less than a second. It's hard for me to monday morning quarterback that with a clean conscience.

I think fchow has it right. This strikes me as something that should be handled internally and not as a criminal matter for reasons both practical and assumed.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlanta-p...olated-multiple-times-fatal/story?id=71295429

The real threat to the public was officer Rolfe. He violated his training and police policy which forbids shooting at a fleeing victim. He fired twice. One bullet hit a car that was occupied by three uninvolved citizens.

Acoording to that logic, Rolfe was a threat to innocent bystanders, in possession of a deadly weapon, and showing a willingness to use it in a way that endangered the lives of other citizens. Should the other officer present have used his gun to take out Rolfe? I mean of the two folks involved here, Brooks and Rolfe, only one of them readily put bystanders in immediate danger through their actions and it was Rolfe and his decision making that did it.

I'm not seriously suggesting Rolfe should have been shot by the other officer. But I am seriously suggesting he was more of a threat to the lives of bystanders than Brooks was. So if people are using the threat of someone whose actions didn't come close to presenting the danger to others that Rolfe's did, it isn't an argument that is consistent in it's logic.

 

Probably too quick to charge. It is telling, however, that after the man was shot the officers stood on him and kicked him. At the very least, they should be able to be found guilty of that.

 

That part wasn't in the video I saw, neither was the patdown or prior investigation (45 minutes is a hell of a long time to talk to this guy), which are all parts that will be considered by whatever body adjudicates this.

 

Yeah... that 40+ minute conversation seems really odd.

 

The only place you can see that "kick" is in a still shot presented by the DA. I looked for some time to find video of it and I was unable to find any. Obviously the DA has access to all the video evidence but it is funny they release a lot of video evidence yet just a screen shot of the "kick". That leads me to believe it was less an actual kick rather than a nudge with his foot. I am very open to change my mind on that if someone can show the actual video evidence of the cop raring back and kicking him.

 

Yeah. It also doesn't really track with the video of the officers trying to render comfort and aid.

 

What about a drunk man with a baseball bat running through a neighborhood? That person is a danger to people yet would you say police should shoot him?

A taser isn't a weapon to inflect serious bodily harm, which is what the law states. The law doesn't state "danger to society"

 

There are witnesses that also have stated that Rolfe kicked him, I believe. They also stated they did not immediately try and give aid to the shot man.

In addition, officer Rolfe fired twice. One of his bullets hit a car with innocent bystanders. He violated all sorts of police policy including shooting a fleeing suspect. Officer Rolfe endangered the lives of innocent civilians. Whether you agree that his shooting Brooks in the back was a crime or not, Rolfe's actions were wrong and he needs to be held accountable.

 

if that person is about to swing that bat at you, yes, deadly force would be acceptable if you have a concealed carry.

 

Just trying to understand some reasoning.

In a hypothetical where a person was running away from a cop but still shooting a firearm behind him while running, would you consider that shootings "fleeing suspect". Brooks turned around and aimed a weapon. He want merely fleeing.

Also, this is witness testimony. I'm not going to be so certain based on witness testimony. What if the witness is exaggerating? What if the witness mistaken the officer kicking the taser away with actually kicking Brooks? What if the witness has a bias?