Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are an idiot. Violent criminal released on COVID 19...never done shit for society but sponge welfare and abuse drugs and his children. Attacks a good man who puts his life in danger everyday for his fellow citizens and most likely served and defended his nation in U.S. Military. B!ack racist DA goes after him because he is white band DA can grandstand in an election hear. But, whatever CNN. MSNBC, program you to think...go ahead.They never told him he was under arrest for DUI...Let's start with your first claim that hitting an officer is a felony...
You just claimed he committed a felony, but the statute clearly says, it's a MISDEMEANOR.GA CODE § 16-5-23 (e)
(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple battery against a police officer, correction officer, or detention officer engaged in carrying out official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
GA CODE § 16-10-24 (b)
Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.
By engaging in violence in the process of resisting arrest, the misdemeanor is escalated to a forcible felony under the law.
Next.
If it had a been a firearm then I'd say have at him. But it wasn't a firearm.Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.
500 non-whites shot by police last year and 50 blacks. 2-1 ratio. It is a politically motivated myth that black's ate disproportionately targeted by police. Complete bullshit for political purposes. But, blacks and liberal media need something to crybaby around about.It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?
Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.The only stooping I need to do is in order to look you in the eye but I am surprised to discover you're intimidated by the fact that I'm female. I would have never guessed that to be your problem however I made the comment I did about you discounting my inital response to you as emotional, because you accused both DragonLady and Coyote of being emotional as well, while I found their comments were well reasoned and on point.Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.
Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.
That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.
If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.
I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.
If your argument were so infallible, you wouldn't have needed to stoop to that level.
I will not be replying to you any further in this thread.
Not agreeing with someone is one thing. Throwing a pissy hissy fit and declaring you're taking your balls and going home is very pedantic but is certainly your perogative but know this. My comments are based on the training I've received from firearm instructors who are certified by the agency that trains all of the law enforcement officers in the state. I will put their opinions, court testimony, and beliefs above those of an childish and insecure little man any day of the week.
Agree on Floyd case...
On Georgia... the cops were over charged.... the book thrown at them...
Certainly not felony murder.... that's a huge over reach.... but I do believe the one cop in Georgia should be charged with man slaughter, go to trial, let all facts be shown, defense and prosecutors, and let a jury decide.
Again...he was running AWAY. What other could they have taken?No. It would have been lethal if those prongs had attached to the officer's skull. Those tasers have a 15 foot range, and can discharge up to 50,000 volts directly into the target.He was running away as he was trying to fire it, a non lethal weapon of very limited range.He grabbed a fully charged taser and attempted to incapacitate or kill a police officer with it.A lot of people don't try to disarm the arresting officer when resisting arrest, nor do they attempt to us that officer's weapon against him. They simply want to get away. That's it, that's all.A lot of people resist arrest. Is that a death sentence?No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.
I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.
It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.
The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.
The man was a drunk driver.
Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?
He did not grab his gun.
Again...is that a death sentence?
So, yes.
That is enough to stop the human heart from beating.
These arguments that the taser was non lethal are intellectually dishonest.
Coyote slow and try thinking it out, Brooks as a DRUNK man, broke numerous laws, starting with his resisting and assaulting the police, evading arrest, shooting a projectile taser gun he stole from the police, at one of the police men.
He made it clear he was now a threat to the public for various modes of violence he produced, stop trying to rationalize his idiotic violent behavior.
Actions of one event...directed solely at evading arrest, directed at the police...make him a threat to the public?
Well shoot...using that logic, Clive Bundy and his gang should have been shot down, not heroized.
Now you are just embarrassing yourself, you keep ignoring his physical assault on two men, steals a firearm which he uses with intent to cause serious injury,, evading a legal, proper arrest, while he is drunk, all while he is trying to run away, the man was clearly a danger in the area.
Violence, violence and yet more violence, you can't explain them away for his trying to evade a legal arrest.
I think he did it because he realize he was violating his probation, which means a good chance he goes to prison, that makes him dangerous.
He struggled with officers...not generic men
He stole a taser. Not a gun. If you think they are equivalent, then why do police need guns?
Why do YOU keep ignoring the state of Georgia laws on what is considered a firearm? They state that projectile Tasers as a firearm, I gave you the link about at POST 283
I repeat:
"Stun Gun Laws in Georgia
Legally, stun guns are divided into two types:
The “contact” type of stun gun is not considered a firearm in Georgia and can generally be carried without a permit. The “projectile” type stun gun is considered a firearm and is regulated by the same laws that govern the use of other types of weapons."
- One type requires you to make direct contact with your target before the gun discharges.
- The other type, used by police, fires a projectile (typically a wire) into the target so it can be used at a distance.
bolding mine
You going to keep ignoring this?
500 non-whites shot by police last year and 50 blacks. 2-1 ratio. It is a politically motivated myth that black's ate disproportionately targeted by police. Complete bullshit for political purposes. But, blacks and liberal media need something to crybaby around about.It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?
Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.The only stooping I need to do is in order to look you in the eye but I am surprised to discover you're intimidated by the fact that I'm female. I would have never guessed that to be your problem however I made the comment I did about you discounting my inital response to you as emotional, because you accused both DragonLady and Coyote of being emotional as well, while I found their comments were well reasoned and on point.Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.
Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.
That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.
If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.
I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.
If your argument were so infallible, you wouldn't have needed to stoop to that level.
I will not be replying to you any further in this thread.
Not agreeing with someone is one thing. Throwing a pissy hissy fit and declaring you're taking your balls and going home is very pedantic but is certainly your perogative but know this. My comments are based on the training I've received from firearm instructors who are certified by the agency that trains all of the law enforcement officers in the state. I will put their opinions, court testimony, and beliefs above those of an childish and insecure little man any day of the week.
Killed. Hispanics are also " non-whites" and if you're the Times and Post you can be a "white-hispanic" because both papers are race mongers.500 non-whites shot by police last year and 50 blacks. 2-1 ratio. It is a politically motivated myth that black's ate disproportionately targeted by police. Complete bullshit for political purposes. But, blacks and liberal media need something to crybaby around about.It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?
Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.The only stooping I need to do is in order to look you in the eye but I am surprised to discover you're intimidated by the fact that I'm female. I would have never guessed that to be your problem however I made the comment I did about you discounting my inital response to you as emotional, because you accused both DragonLady and Coyote of being emotional as well, while I found their comments were well reasoned and on point.Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.
Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.
That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.
If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.
I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.
If your argument were so infallible, you wouldn't have needed to stoop to that level.
I will not be replying to you any further in this thread.
Not agreeing with someone is one thing. Throwing a pissy hissy fit and declaring you're taking your balls and going home is very pedantic but is certainly your perogative but know this. My comments are based on the training I've received from firearm instructors who are certified by the agency that trains all of the law enforcement officers in the state. I will put their opinions, court testimony, and beliefs above those of an childish and insecure little man any day of the week.
Over 500 non-whites were shot last year - over 400 blacks and about Hispanics. 47 of the people police shot were unarmed.
Washington Post and New York Times have proven themselves over last three years to have zero journalistic standard's and are as politicized as former Soviet media that was propaganda. 2-1 ratio non-whites killed by police vs. black's. Totally a false flag .500 non-whites shot by police last year and 50 blacks. 2-1 ratio. It is a politically motivated myth that black's ate disproportionately targeted by police. Complete bullshit for political purposes. But, blacks and liberal media need something to crybaby around about.It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?
Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.The only stooping I need to do is in order to look you in the eye but I am surprised to discover you're intimidated by the fact that I'm female. I would have never guessed that to be your problem however I made the comment I did about you discounting my inital response to you as emotional, because you accused both DragonLady and Coyote of being emotional as well, while I found their comments were well reasoned and on point.Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.
Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.
That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.
If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.
I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.
If your argument were so infallible, you wouldn't have needed to stoop to that level.
I will not be replying to you any further in this thread.
Not agreeing with someone is one thing. Throwing a pissy hissy fit and declaring you're taking your balls and going home is very pedantic but is certainly your perogative but know this. My comments are based on the training I've received from firearm instructors who are certified by the agency that trains all of the law enforcement officers in the state. I will put their opinions, court testimony, and beliefs above those of an childish and insecure little man any day of the week.
Over 500 non-whites were shot last year - over 400 blacks and about Hispanics. 47 of the people police shot were unarmed.
88 of 429 this year you leftist tool. Stop using this site for your bullshit efforts at some fantasy you have of a communist revolution.500 non-whites shot by police last year and 50 blacks. 2-1 ratio. It is a politically motivated myth that black's ate disproportionately targeted by police. Complete bullshit for political purposes. But, blacks and liberal media need something to crybaby around about.It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?
Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.The only stooping I need to do is in order to look you in the eye but I am surprised to discover you're intimidated by the fact that I'm female. I would have never guessed that to be your problem however I made the comment I did about you discounting my inital response to you as emotional, because you accused both DragonLady and Coyote of being emotional as well, while I found their comments were well reasoned and on point.Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.If your rounds are fired into his back as he was fleeing, then legally he is no longer considered a threat and legally you are not allowed to shoot at him.Yes it does. The moment Brooks chose to violently resist arrest and attack the arresting officers. The moment he aimed that taser at Rolfe's head. He presented himself as a threat and he was treated like one.Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.They have a right to self-defense. Quit advocating for anarchy, crime and lawlessness. Point a weapon at me and I'll cap your ass just as fast.Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.
Already pointed out Brooks WAS A direct threat. End of story. Cop will beat the charges. Throw a shovel of dirt on Brooks and be done with it. Scum got what he deserved.Cops do not have the permission to shoot a person that is not a direct threat to them or to another person in the immediate area.
That has always been the law but you're trying to craft this scenario so that because of everything that occured prior to him running off, the officers were within their right to shoot him, which simply is not the case.
If they had shot him while they were on the ground and he was fighting them or when he first took the officers taser, that would have been the time when they could truthfully say he was posing a threat to them and/or that they were in fear for their lives or in fear of grievous bodily harm. But once he got away from them and was abscounding, the threat to them that could be addressed utilizing deadly force had ceased and they were no longer within their rights to shoot him, let alone shoot to kill him.
I'm guessing that because cops have been getting away with shooting people, including shooting people in the back for so long in this country that you all believe that the doing so is legal however it's not nor has it ever been.
If your argument were so infallible, you wouldn't have needed to stoop to that level.
I will not be replying to you any further in this thread.
Not agreeing with someone is one thing. Throwing a pissy hissy fit and declaring you're taking your balls and going home is very pedantic but is certainly your perogative but know this. My comments are based on the training I've received from firearm instructors who are certified by the agency that trains all of the law enforcement officers in the state. I will put their opinions, court testimony, and beliefs above those of an childish and insecure little man any day of the week.
Over 500 non-whites were shot last year - over 400 blacks and about Hispanics. 47 of the people police shot were unarmed.
www.statista.com
The issue of "drunk driver" is moot. The driver changed all that when he fought with the cop, got him on the ground, took out his weapon and tried to use it against the police. Believe it or not, Coyote, it's not the job of the police to get up every day and go to work saying they are going to risk their life yet again, risk death, and put their life on the line hour by hour in the hopes of giving criminals every last chance possible not to come into harm themselves as they break the law and try to take the officer's life!Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
Police are supposed to be trained to handle these situations.So, to get to the final moments of Mr. Brook's life, we had the following course of events:
1. He was release from prison after having been convicted of felony beating the fuck out of his children.
2. He drank like a goddamn fish, most certainly in violation of his early (unjustified) parole.
3. He got behind the wheel of a car while pass-out drunk, and blocked to drive thru of a Wendy's.
4. After being fairly and respectfully treated by officers, who then attempted to make a necessary and lawful arrest, he starts fighting with cops.
5. He is literally on top of one cop, beating him like he did his own kids in the past.
6. He grabs for any lethal weapon he can get his hands on (thank god it was not the service piece).
7. He attempts to use said firearm (as legally defined) against the police while attempting to flee.
but.....FUCK ALL THAT SHIT!!!!
The POLICE caused this shit!!! EXECUTE THEM!!!
You can't make up a fucking story that is any funnier, and simultaneously sadder, than this bullshit already is.
.
The man is drunk. Why he fuck do you assholes think he is supposed to a rationally?
If he got away, they know who he is and where he lives.
www.powerlineblog.com
I don't know, I've seen the video but don't recall the time frame. If I had to guess just based on what I can recall from my memory I'd say maybe between 4 and 5 seconds or so?If it had a been a firearm then I'd say have at him. But it wasn't a firearm.Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.
How much time was it between the brooks taking the cop's taser and his being shot?
I don't know, I've seen the video but don't recall the time frame. If I had to guess just based on what I can recall from my memory I'd say maybe between 4 and 5 seconds or so?If it had a been a firearm then I'd say have at him. But it wasn't a firearm.Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.
How much time was it between the brooks taking the cop's taser and his being shot?
That's a good point.I never claim to be completely dispassionate, Coyote. But I follow where the trail leads, whether that be a destination I like or a destination I don't.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
Logic is a factor here as well. What would you have done in the officer's shoes at that moment in time? Lets say you had the legal expertise and training that officer had. What would you have done??
You don't get time to weigh your options with a violent assailant, you either let him flee or you stop him by whatever means are available. If he presents danger to both you an the greater community, the time for exacting mercy on the assailant has passed. Your main considerations are those of the safety of you and your colleagues and of the surrounding populace.
Here is the pertinent point to me (and I can’t speak to training...neither of us can)...the person was fleeing. I had in hand his I’d, wallet, car keys. I knew where he lived. I knew his criminal record (not particularly violent, no weapons charges). I could pick him up later. I had that choice.
They had just frisked him so they knew he was unarmed, that is until he relieved one of the officers of their taser.I don't know, I've seen the video but don't recall the time frame. If I had to guess just based on what I can recall from my memory I'd say maybe between 4 and 5 seconds or so?If it had a been a firearm then I'd say have at him. But it wasn't a firearm.Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.
How much time was it between the brooks taking the cop's taser and his being shot?
Do you think its possible that the police didn't know what weapon the guy had in his hand? I personally don't really care; you point a weapon at the cops and they are perfectly justified in shooting you. But I would imagine they didn't do a weapons check with one another in 4-5 seconds and know what he had on him. Again, if I were on the jury, I would never vote to find the cop guilty of murder.
Fantastic post. Thank you.Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained
What Brooks did by punching an officer in the face was an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail (see Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-4.).
GA CODE § 16-5-23 (e)
(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple battery against a police officer, correction officer, or detention officer engaged in carrying out official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
Brooks, by resisting arrest, punching the officer in the face and later firing a taser at the police officer was guilty of a felony under Georgia Law, punishable by a maximum of five years in jail:
GA CODE § 16-10-24 (b)
(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.
GA CODE § 16-11-123
As soon as Brooks gained possession of the taser, he was facing five years in jail for illegally possessing a firearm. As the law states:
"A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or weapons when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession any sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer, and, upon conviction thereof, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five years."
GA CODE § 16-11-106 (a)
Tasers are considered firearms under Georgia Law:
(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "firearm" shall include stun guns and tasers. A stun gun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.
GA CODE § 16-5-21 (c)(1)(A)
What Brooks did with the taser he stole would have warranted 10 to 20 years in jail under Georgia law had he survived the encounter. As stated above (in § 16-11-106), tasers are classified as firearms:
(c)
(1) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:
(A) When such assault occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.
GA CODE § 16-3-21 (a)
First conclusion: Officer Rolfe was justified in using deadly force to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony" (as defined in GA CODE § 16-11-131), given that the one or more of the above offenses committed by Brooks would have resulted in imprisonment of more than one year in jail:
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23-, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
GA CODE § 17-4-20 (b)
Second conclusion: Rolfe was permitted to use deadly force to apprehend the felon or misdemeanant:
(b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.
I won't dive into the federal offenses he committed before he died. I am making the case that the police followed Georgia law to the letter. A grand jury will likely not convict Rolfe and Bronson based on these facts.
I challenge you, the reader, to prove me otherwise.
He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.
I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.
www.nationalreview.com
They had just frisked him so they knew he was unarmed, that is until he relieved one of the officers of their taser.I don't know, I've seen the video but don't recall the time frame. If I had to guess just based on what I can recall from my memory I'd say maybe between 4 and 5 seconds or so?If it had a been a firearm then I'd say have at him. But it wasn't a firearm.Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.
How much time was it between the brooks taking the cop's taser and his being shot?
Do you think its possible that the police didn't know what weapon the guy had in his hand? I personally don't really care; you point a weapon at the cops and they are perfectly justified in shooting you. But I would imagine they didn't do a weapons check with one another in 4-5 seconds and know what he had on him. Again, if I were on the jury, I would never vote to find the cop guilty of murder.
The taser is day-glow yellow presumably so that the officers don't inadvertently confuse it with their firearm.
So since they had already frisked him and determined him to be unarmed, and knew that the only weapon he had access to and had acquired was one of their bright yellow tasers, then in my opinion, yes they knew he was not armed with a deadly firearm that could shoot and kill them from a distance.
Can't wait to see where THAT is written that you have to be psychic in order to carry a gun for self-defense. BOTTOM LINE: When you feel your life (or someone else's) is in danger, you shoot to prevent it.Actually, when you carry a weapon you are supposed to know what to do and know ahead of time what you will do BEFORE you ever find yourself in that situation instead of trying to figure out what to do in a split second.I never claim to be completely dispassionate, Coyote. But I follow where the trail leads, whether that be a destination I like or a destination I don't.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
Logic is a factor here as well. What would you have done in the officer's shoes at that moment in time? Lets say you had the legal expertise and training that officer had. What would you have done?
You don't get time to weigh your options with a violent assailant, you either let him flee or you stop him by whatever means are available. If he presents danger to both you and the greater community, the time for exacting mercy on the assailant has passed. Your main considerations are those of the safety of you and your colleagues and of the surrounding populace.
They had just frisked him so they knew he was unarmed, that is until he relieved one of the officers of their taser.I don't know, I've seen the video but don't recall the time frame. If I had to guess just based on what I can recall from my memory I'd say maybe between 4 and 5 seconds or so?If it had a been a firearm then I'd say have at him. But it wasn't a firearm.Right. Except there is a difference between being drunk, belligerent, and wanting to fight and actually fighting and pointing a weapon at a cop in hot pursuit. The cops acted appropriately.I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.Isn’t that what you are doing?I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?Still not punishable by death.However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.
He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.
This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.
If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?
It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.
What about the other path?
You can't be a police officer and not expect to encounter people who are drunk, belligerent, wanting to fight, etc. You can't just shoot them, not legally that is.
How much time was it between the brooks taking the cop's taser and his being shot?
Do you think its possible that the police didn't know what weapon the guy had in his hand? I personally don't really care; you point a weapon at the cops and they are perfectly justified in shooting you. But I would imagine they didn't do a weapons check with one another in 4-5 seconds and know what he had on him. Again, if I were on the jury, I would never vote to find the cop guilty of murder.
The taser is day-glow yellow presumably so that the officers don't inadvertently confuse it with their firearm.
So since they had already frisked him and determined him to be unarmed, and knew that the only weapon he had access to and had acquired was one of their bright yellow tasers, then in my opinion, yes they knew he was not armed with a deadly firearm that could shoot and kill them from a distance.
