Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[harmonica]

''''my daddy is a better criminal than yo daddy'''''
...'''my daddy bees the best criminal eva'''''
...my daddy got mo $$$$$$ for bing murdered by white racist cops than yo daddy'''''

You wake up being a racist fuck

You wake up being a racist fuck

 

[harmonica]

''''my daddy is a better criminal than yo daddy'''''
...'''my daddy bees the best criminal eva'''''
...my daddy got mo $$$$$$ for bing murdered by white racist cops than yo daddy'''''

You wake up being a racist fuck

please explain how is that racist!!!???!!!
I await your reply

 

[Care4all]

I think the DA clearly threw the Book at the officers.... listed every violation, no matter how small....

It ain't a term for nothing.


The drunk Mr Brooks being shot in the back while running away, was absolutely, uncalled for, they were not faced with a deadly threat....

I think a taser is a deadly threat.

Brooks not only had it but used it against the officer. While the taser is supposed to be non lethal, an officer twitching on the ground can have his head stomped in by the guy holding the taser.

There may be some situations where the taser is deadly, just like a BB gun......can kill...

I do not think, this was one of them for the taser .....

The DA said the taser was empty, no juice, because it had been used twice by them, it was out of juice.... And the cops KNEW it had been fired twice....I guess they are trained to know their taser is useless after 2 firings....?

 

[RealDave]

''''my daddy is a better criminal than yo daddy'''''
...'''my daddy bees the best criminal eva'''''
...my daddy got mo $$$$$$ for bing murdered by white racist cops than yo daddy'''''

You wake up being a racist fuck

please explain how is that racist!!!???!!!
I await your reply

Really? You don't know? You must have your racism so inbred into your very being that you don't know how racist you are.

 

[harmonica]

''''my daddy is a better criminal than yo daddy'''''
...'''my daddy bees the best criminal eva'''''
...my daddy got mo $$$$$$ for bing murdered by white racist cops than yo daddy'''''

You wake up being a racist fuck

please explain how is that racist!!!???!!!
I await your reply

Really? You don't know? You must have your racism so inbred into your very being that you don't know how racist you are.

You must have your racism so inbred into your very being that you don't know how racist you are.

WOOOHOOOOO--you CAN'T explain it because it's not racist--you just proved it
hahahhahahahhaah

 

[dannyboys]

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.

Still not punishable by death.

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?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

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?

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.

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.

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.

What about the other path?

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.

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.

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.

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.

WHY DO ALL YOU ASSES KEEP DANCING AROUND THE CENTRAL ISSUE?

Had Brooks not put up a fight, resisted arrest and threatened an officer with a weapon, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

Brooks had not been told he was under arrest for DUI..... Hard to believe they had him held there for 45 minutes and not once by either cop, told that he was under arrest, and for what, and his Miranda rights given.

How can that happen?

And now the facts: Brookes was passed out in the drive through line. That's why the cops were called.
When the cops arrived they used their on-board computer to run Brook's car tags and Brook's drivers license. Within a minute they knew all about Brooks. They knew he was on probation for among other crimes child abuse.
They needed to conduct field sobriety tests to determine if Brooks was going to be arrested for DUI AND for breaking his probation. Which they did. Brooks failed two sobriety tests. As soon as that happened one cop attempted to handcuff Brooks and inform Brooks of his rights.
At that point we all know the rest.
The important thing to remember is both cops KNEW who they were dealing with.
Brooks had been around LE for long enough to know the cops KNEW about his probation when they began the field sobriety tests and he KNEW if he was charged with DUI he was going back to prison and some judge might throw the key away. That's why he fought and ran.

 

[dannyboys]

I think the DA clearly threw the Book at the officers.... listed every violation, no matter how small....

It ain't a term for nothing.


The drunk Mr Brooks being shot in the back while running away, was absolutely, uncalled for, they were not faced with a deadly threat....

I think a taser is a deadly threat.

Brooks not only had it but used it against the officer. While the taser is supposed to be non lethal, an officer twitching on the ground can have his head stomped in by the guy holding the taser.

There may be some situations where the taser is deadly, just like a BB gun......can kill...

I do not think, this was one of them for the taser .....

The DA said the taser was empty, no juice, because it had been used twice by them, it was out of juice.... And the cops KNEW it had been fired twice....I guess they are trained to know their taser is useless after 2 firings....?

You have seen the video asshole!
When Brooks turned and fired the Taser what the fuck caused the flash as clearly seen on the video? The DA may end up in prison for his sexual misconduct and theft. The asshole tree dweller overcharged for political reasons in order to attempt to win his reelection.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Other countries seem able to conduct competent policing, rarely resorting to lethal force against unarmed people.

Maybe we are doing something wrong.


Isn't that worth considering?

Which "other countries" did you have in mind?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

And then you have the Leftist media spin that the guy was killed just for being drunk.

Editorial: Atlanta police killed a Black man for being drunk at Wendy’s

Surely we can find a way to end horrific killings like that of Rayshard Brooks and still have police who responsibly protect the public.

www.latimes.com

Is it ignorance, stupidity, or politics?

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face. This Brooks guy was an idiot who apparently took a stupid enough situation of falling asleep while ordering a hamburger and spun it for no known good reason into eventually forcing an officer to shoot him dead, the destruction of a entire business and the loss of all jobs involved.

Worse, now every time a cop is forced to arrest someone or defend himself, he has to wonder if it will be the end of his career if not his freedom or life!

He had a reason....going back to prison on parole violations for drunk driving....

Sounds to me like maybe he should have put more attention into not making terrible life choices.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone?

Anyone??

Hello, is this thing on? Did my internet go out?

He was shot in the back. Running away.

He was shot in the back running away . . . and firing a weapon at the cop behind him.

That last part is sorta important.

Rarely lethal, with a limited range. They could have opted not to shoot him but follow at a distance or pick him up later with reinforcements. He was drunk.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure Atlanta police procedure doesn't give them an "option" on just letting someone who's committed multiple felonies run away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

that if he had been allowed to flee, he would have done so with a deadly weapon and presented a danger to the surrounding community.

Except a taser is considered a dangerous weapon but not deadly; you are obviously blinded by your racist impulses.

Mkay the Georgia DA ruled it a deadly weapon when he charged two cops who used them on some college kids a couple of weeks ago. You people need to make up your mind.

This is where the “informative” button is missed. So which is it? The police list as non lethal/less lethal than a gun.

You'll have to ask the jackass of a DA. He's the one who seems confused on the subject.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone?

Anyone??

Hello, is this thing on? Did my internet go out?

He was shot in the back. Running away.

That does not make a point.

All it does is stir emotion. It does not present any facts, Coyote.

It states a fact.

Some more facts that were not acknowledged: A taser is not lethal. They had his wallet and driver’s license, and car.

The officer kicked him as he lay dying.

They delayed medical help.

For most of the encounter (41 something minutes) Rayshard was calm, reasonable, offered to walk home (per recorded footage).

Your question is really contingent on another: could this have been handled differently in a way that kept everyone safe, and prevented any deaths?

Your so-called facts rebutted:

A Taser doesn't have to be lethal; it just has to incapacitate the officer, who has lethal weapons on him, and would be helpless to defend against a lethal unarmed attack at that point.

What the fuck difference does it make if they had his wallet, ID, car, or his fucking deed to his house?

Can you tell me the exact moment in any of the videos from which you got this "the officer kicked him" schtick? There were something like 14 or 15 videos made of this incident, y'know. Should be easy to prove.

Who cares if he was "calm and reasonable" for 41 minutes, or 41 hours, prior to attacking the cops? People are generally peaceful right up until the moment they become violent. What the actual fuck?

So he is so violent he is running away and the only alternative is to shoot him?

Given that he fired a weapon at the cop? Yup.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All this cop has to say....and by the way I'm not going to mention the poor guys name here because the dude is being screwed.....but all he has to say is I thought he had a gun and I saw a flash....case over....Atlanta DA...egg on face.....and Atlanta burns to the ground....

Other countries seem able to conduct competent policing, rarely resorting to lethal force against unarmed people.

Maybe we are doing something wrong.


Isn't that worth considering?

YES. Now we are getting somewhere.

Our citizens are RESISTING ARREST!!!

.

A lot of people resist arrest and do not get killed for it.

That's certainly preferable. It's just not always possible. If a person puts himself in the dangerous, unpredictable situation of having violently resisted arrest, the consequences are all on him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So he is so violent he is running away and the only alternative is to shoot him?

...before he gets more weapons or hostages or kills other cops trying to arrest him, or ....

You clearly do NOT understand, so this is pointless.

.

Why would he? He is a petty criminal, with no history of gun violence, what is he going in a few hours that is worth shooting him down? We aren’t talking about a gangbanger here.

There are alternatives. If other can manage it...why the hell do we fall so fricken short over and over and over? Why do police, in general get far more training how to use lethal force than on descalation and alternatives? He is a drunk driver. They got his wallet, license, keys. He wasnt going to be driving anywhere in the near future.

You seem to think cops are given a lot more leeway to choose whether or not to enforce the law than they actually are. They don't get to say, "Well, he just committed multiple violent felonies, but we'll just let him go and track him down later, because I'm sure nothing bad will come of that."

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

.

Police are supposed to be trained to handle these situations.

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.

Except they're not allowed to choose to let him get away.

I have no idea what "he was drunk and can't be expected to be rational" has to do with anything. Are we supposed to excuse his actions because he chose to get himself too drunk to control himself?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well you failed with your first assertion BECAUSE the penalty for not a single one of the offenses you painstakingly laid out is summary execution. DEATH for an offense is only allowable as punishment for a crime after the defendant is afforded due process and is convicted and sentenced to death.

A police officer at the scene is not authorized to be judge, jury and executioner. What's even more important though which is at issue in this and in many other of these killings is that deadly force is allowed by law only when faced when an imminent (meaning happening RIGHT NOW) threat of grievous (serious as in life threatening) bodily harm or death. This is the legal standard for everyone, police and civilian alike and a person running away/trying to escape from you is no longer considered a threat.

You need to stop trying to conflate this with capital punishment. The law very clearly lays out situations in which a police officer can use deadly force, and it doesn't say a damned thing about "Only if the crimes committed carry the death penalty".

A person running away AND FIRING A WEAPON AT YOU WHIILE DOING IT is a very different thing, and don't think everyone hasn't noticed the way you diligently leave that last part out. It's almost like you're determined to have one particular opinion, and any facts that contradict it just don't exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Still not punishable by death.

Still not relevant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.

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.

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.

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.

Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.

In your opinion, which as I've mentioned mysteriously deletes any facts that don't support it.

The opinion of the law of Georgia, on the other hand, isn't interested in what a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet have decided based on their "expertise" of having watched videos and read opinion columns.

 

[Dragonlady]

is it that you accuse the female posters here of making emotional arguments?

It has nothing to do with your gender. Employing such a tactic means your argument is no longer viable.

Liberals of your stripe and of both genders are prone to making overly emotional and non factual arguments.

Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.

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.

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.

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.

Self defense never comes into play in this scenario.

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.

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.

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.

Your asinine attempt to use your gender as a weapon in this debate has discredited you and your argument.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Over 500 non-whites were shot last year - over 400 blacks and about Hispanics. 47 of the people police shot were unarmed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

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.
This is a liberal organization as well.

People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2024 | Statista

The trend of fatal police shootings in the U.S. seems to only be increasing each year, with 1,097 civilians, 225 of whom were Black, killed by police in 2022.

www.statista.com

You website is bullsit. The WAPO article is the correct number.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Still not punishable by death.

Still not relevant.

Very relevant. It showed he was no risk to the larger community.