Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[georgephillip]

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

Are you saying the officers will not be indicted?
There are reports Brosnan will testify for the prosecution.

US policeman faces murder charge over Brooks death

"Garrett Rolfe, who has already been fired, faces 11 charges related to Rayshard Brooks' death. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

"The other officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, will testify as a prosecution witness in the case, officials said."

 

[TemplarKormac]

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....

And according to every legal article I read, what the DA did was a catastrophic mistake. He grossly overcharged the officers, almost guaranteeing that they are exonerated by a grand jury.

As per your second contention, Brooks established himself as a "deadly threat" the moment he fired the taser. His willingness to use a weapon against police demonstrated that. It demonstrates that Brooks would have used any means at his disposal to prevent the police from subduing him.

And as per the next contention:

He was running away, yes, while pointing his stolen taser at the officer. Notice his positioning in the video. He turned his right arm and upper torso toward the officer while maintaining a forward motion. His back remained exposed to the officer who ultimately fired the shots. There was no way he was simply fleeing. He had a weapon. He fired. He died. His mistake, not the officer's.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Are you saying the officers will not be indicted?
There are reports Brosnan will testify for the prosecution.

US policeman faces murder charge over Brooks death

"Garrett Rolfe, who has already been fired, faces 11 charges related to Rayshard Brooks' death. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

"The other officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, will testify as a prosecution witness in the case, officials said."

That means nothing. His testimony will not change the fact the DA overcharged Rolfe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's start with your first claim that hitting an officer is a felony...

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.

You just claimed he committed a felony, but the statute clearly says, it's a MISDEMEANOR.

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.

They never told him he was under arrest for DUI...

Also meaningless. The actions he engaged in thereafter sealed his fate under Georgia law. What makes you think a drunkard would be able to comprehend his rights if they were stated to him verbatim? There's no need, it would be a waste of breath.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to effectively counter my argument.

 

[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....

And according to every legal article I read, what the DA did was a catastrophic mistake. He grossly overcharged the officers, almost guaranteeing that they are exonerated by a grand jury.

As per your second contention, Brooks established himself as a "deadly threat" the moment he fired the taser. His willingness to use a weapon against police demonstrated that. It demonstrates that Brooks would have used any means at his disposal to prevent the police from subduing him.

And as per the next contention:

He was running away, yes, while pointing his stolen taser at the officer. Notice his positioning in the video. He turned his right arm and upper torso toward the officer while maintaining a forward motion. His back remained exposed to the officer who ultimately fired the shots. There was no way he was simply fleeing. He had a weapon. He fired. He died. His mistake, not the officer's.

No, he didn't. The cops KNEW the taser was empty, out of juice, because it had already been discharged twice. He was not a deadly threat to the officers...And they both knew this....

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, he didn't. The cops KNEW the taser was empty, out of juice, because it had already been discharged twice. He was not a deadly threat to the officers...And they both knew this....

Sorry, the willingness to use deadly or injurious force against the police made him a threat, not only to the police, but to the surrounding population. If he had not been shot, he would have continued to flee, using whatever means were at his disposal to resist his arrest. You cannot presume he would not have used more violence to do so had he survived.

Willingness to use any violence in the process of resisting your arrest makes you a threat. Your argument is invalid.

 

[DJT for Life]

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

Are you saying the officers will not be indicted?
There are reports Brosnan will testify for the prosecution.

US policeman faces murder charge over Brooks death

"Garrett Rolfe, who has already been fired, faces 11 charges related to Rayshard Brooks' death. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

"The other officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, will testify as a prosecution witness in the case, officials said."

That means nothing. His testimony will not change the fact the DA overcharged Rolfe.

Heavens yes.

Felony Murder is the same as second-degree murder in Georgia. That will never be proven.

It doesn't matter what the DA thinks, it only matters what the Officer was thinking at the time the event happened.

The video is hard, hard evidence of what the officer was thinking. He was chasing Brooks with his taser drawn and in
his right hand. When Brooks fired the taser he had stolen from the officers, the Cop immediately put his laser in his left hand
and drew his revolver and fired. He was in fear of his life.

The DA is pandering for votes in the coming election. He statd that he doesn't believe this case will even go to a grand jury before
October. Therefore there will be no trial until after election day. (If there is a trial at all.)

The cop will probably do okay. He probably has a deal with his defense atty that when he is found not guilty they will
sue the Mayor and City for not allowing for Due Process to play out. They split that pot which will probably be extensive.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

not a capital crime

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Are you saying the officers will not be indicted?
There are reports Brosnan will testify for the prosecution.

US policeman faces murder charge over Brooks death

"Garrett Rolfe, who has already been fired, faces 11 charges related to Rayshard Brooks' death. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

"The other officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, will testify as a prosecution witness in the case, officials said."

That means nothing. His testimony will not change the fact the DA overcharged Rolfe.

Heavens yes.

Felony Murder is the same as second-degree murder in Georgia. That will never be proven.

It doesn't matter what the DA thinks, it only matters what the Officer was thinking at the time the event happened.

The video is hard, hard evidence of what the officer was thinking. He was chasing Brooks with his taser drawn and in
his right hand. When Brooks fired the taser he had stolen from the officers, the Cop immediately put his laser in his left hand
and drew his revolver and fired. He was in fear of his life.

The DA is pandering for votes in the coming election. He statd that he doesn't believe this case will even go to a grand jury before
October. Therefore there will be no trial until after election day. (If there is a trial at all.)

The cop will probably do okay. He probably has a deal with his defense atty that when he is found not guilty they will
sue the Mayor and City for not allowing for Due Process to play out. They split that pot which will probably be extensive.

HEAVENS YES!

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

not a capital crime

That's not what got him killed. Pay attention.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

not a capital crime

That's not what got him killed. Pay attention.

Nothing he did was a capital offense.

The only time the cops would have been justified in shooting Brooks was during the actual physical altercation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you saying the officers will not be indicted?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

not a capital crime

That's not what got him killed. Pay attention.

Nothing he did was a capital offense.

The only time the cops would have been justified in shooting Brooks was during the actual physical altercation.

Ha, your ignorance of the law makes you look foolish. Your ignorance of the evidence makes you look even more so.

I will demonstrate:

As seen between 0:12 and 0:19 in the video below, Brooks was not only a threat after he assaulted an officer, he became a serious threat when he fired the remaining taser rounds at the officer. At 0:26 he pointed and fired the taser at Rolfe, and was still pointing it at Rolfe at the time he was turning around to flee. After Brooks fired the taser at Rolfe, the officer most likely deemed him a threat to the community and had no choice but to use deadly force to stop him.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

not a capital crime

That's not what got him killed. Pay attention.

Nothing he did was a capital offense.

The only time the cops would have been justified in shooting Brooks was during the actual physical altercation.

Capital offense? That is a court ruling. Cops are not courts.
Brooks WAS shot during the altercation. He took a weapon from the officer, turned and pointed it at him. Had it been his pistol, that cop would likely be dead. Had he connected with that taser, the officer would be down, then Brooks would have been free to come back, get his service pistol, and do God knows what with it.

1. First rule officers are train with is to use deadly force as needed when they feel their life may be at risk.
2. Second rule officers are trained with is to protect the community.

You wanna fight with a cop, assault him, resist arrest, take his weapon and try to use it on him, then ALL BETS ARE OFF, JACK, bend over and grab your ankles. If a cop can't even defend himself, then he might as well resign and not be a cop. NO ONE will want to work as police if every confrontation they have, the criminal has all of the rights and they have none.

The police represent AUTHORITY. Disobey it at your own risk.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

not a capital crime

That's not what got him killed. Pay attention.

Nothing he did was a capital offense.

The only time the cops would have been justified in shooting Brooks was during the actual physical altercation.

Capital offense? That is a court ruling. Cops are not courts.
Brooks WAS shot during the altercation. He took a weapon from the officer, turned and pointed it at him. Had it been his pistol, that cop would likely be dead. Had he connected with that taser, the officer would be down, then Brooks would have been free to come back, get his service pistol, and do God knows what with it.

1. First rule officers are train with is to use deadly force as needed when they feel their life may be at risk.
2. Second rule officers are trained with is to protect the community.

You wanna fight with a cop, assault him, resist arrest, take his weapon and try to use it on him, then ALL BETS ARE OFF, JACK, bend over and grab your ankles. If a cop can't even defend himself, then he might as well resign and not be a cop. NO ONE will want to work as police if every confrontation they have, the criminal has all of the rights and they have none.

The police represent AUTHORITY. Disobey it at your own risk.

Right the cops should not be judge jury and executioner.

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.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

 

[georgephillip]

That means nothing. His testimony will not change the fact the DA overcharged Rolfe.

That seems like a distinct possibility to me; however, I don't see how Brooks posed any physical threat to either officer?

US policeman faces murder charge over Brooks death

"The district attorney said that eight videos from the scene showed Mr Brooks 'displayed no aggressive behaviour during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds' that he was questioned, and posed no physical risk to the officers in that time.

"Mr Brooks was 18ft (5.5m) from the officers when he was shot twice in the back, investigators say.

"'I believe that at the time of the shooting, Mr Brooks did not represent a threat,' Mr Howard said, noting that police rules prohibit firing a Taser at a fleeing suspect.

"'So he certainly cannot fire a handgun at someone running away,' he said."

 

[TemplarKormac]

That seems like a distinct possibility to me; however, I don't see how Brooks posed any physical threat to either officer?

US policeman faces murder charge over Brooks death

"The district attorney said that eight videos from the scene showed Mr Brooks 'displayed no aggressive behaviour during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds' that he was questioned, and posed no physical risk to the officers in that time.

See post 34

 

[Meathead]

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.

Twinkie, the cop shot this guy in the back.

I repeat. He shot the guy in the back. Twice. Over a parking violation.

DUI, resisting arrest and shooting at a cop. Must have slipped your mind, such as it is.