Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[TemplarKormac]

Again, I'm going strictly from memory here because I just don't have the energy to view anymore video, but if they had Brooks in their physical custody and sight the entire time between them frisking him and him wrestling with them on the ground and then absconding, how and from where could he have acquired a deadly firearm?

From the police officer after he drew it in an attempt to subdue him. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure that out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, I'm going strictly from memory here because I just don't have the energy to view anymore video, but if they had Brooks in their physical custody and sight the entire time between them frisking him and him wrestling with them on the ground and then absconding, how and from where could he have acquired a deadly firearm?

From the police officer after he drew it in an attempt to subdue him. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure that out.

She's really not grasping this, for some reason.

 

[Richard-H]

At the time of his shooting, Brooks posed no threat to anyone.

The simple question is:

If Brooks had not been shot was there any probability that he would have caused serious bodily harm or death to another person?

Since he was running away from the Police officer and showed no intention of attacking them at that point, he did not show any intent of harming anyone. He simply wanted to escape.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Perhaps that is where procedure surrounding the use of deadly force needs to be re-examined. He wasn’t someone with a record of violence and he wasn’t armed with a gun, and they had his car and id.

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

 

[Coyote]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Common sense is incompatible with being drunk.

 

[basquebromance]

‪I want to reflect on the words of Fannie Lou Hamer: Nobody’s free until everybody’s free‬

FAST TRIAL...DEATH PENALTY!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Common sense is incompatible with being drunk.

Add his being incoherent to his threat risk.

Case in point. What makes you think he was going to be cooperative thereafter after resisting his arrest and stealing a taser? You don't reason with incoherent violent threats, you stop them from becoming even greater threats. To you, to the community.

 

[Coyote]

I do not think charges of murder are appropriate, but I do think the question of when lethal force force should be used IS and should be addressed. To quote another poster, “anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to be allowed out without a babysitter”. There are too many incidents like this.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Common sense is incompatible with being drunk.

Add his being incoherent to his threat risk.

Case in point. What makes you think he was going to be cooperative thereafter after resisting his arrest and stealing a taser? You don't reason with incoherent violent threats, you stop them from becoming even greater threats. To you, to the community.

What evidence do you have that he is a threat to the community? That he will be a greater threat? So your only option is to kill him? We aren’t talking about a violent felon who has killed or raped people right?

How many times do police have to go and hunt a suspect and arrest him? They do it all the time. When he sobers up, he is likely to be more rational.

 

[toobfreak]

No one invaded a private space with a deadly weapon with intent to do harm. Mr. Brooks stopped off at a Wendy's drive through on his way home, after one drink too many, and fell asleep.

Never mind he was driving drunk on the way there, putting innocent people in danger with a 3000 lb machine.

That's of no matter. Everything would have been fine up until the point where Brooks stole a weapon off the cop, turned and aimed it at him. When it gets to that point, nothing else matters, whether you try to run the cop down with your car, pull a knife, a broken bottle, etc., you've now taken an action threatening the life of the cop with a weapon.

Where all this started is when in Minneapolis the riots started and folks were hitting cops in the head with bricks, throwing molotov cocktails, the idiot mayor should have sent in a massive police force and absolutely CRUSHED the rebellion right there and then. Kicked ass, busted heads, shoot to kill, all bets are off. Black Lives Matter? Not when it comes at the expense of police. As soon as authorities signaled that this sort of thing was OK and tolerated, told the police to pull back and take it, they enabled all these people and all since and told them to do even more of it. Now every cop's death and the thousands already injured across this country and everyone else that will be hurt because police walked off the force will be on those politician's hands.

 

[toobfreak]

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

 

[Coyote]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

 

[Care4all]

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.

Could you please provide the LINK where you cut and pasted this information and opinion from..... thanks!!

 

[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.

Perhaps that is where procedure surrounding the use of deadly force needs to be re-examined. He wasn’t someone with a record of violence and he wasn’t armed with a gun, and they had his car and id.

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

I'm sure you're "sure" of whatever the fuck lets you believe you're a good person and anyone disagreeing with you is doing so because they're "eeeevil". I'm equally sure that's why I value your opinion slightly less than the contents of my cat's litter box.

People who aren't bigots can and do make distinctions between what happened to George Floyd and what happened to Raynard Brooks. Maybe when you evolve enough to stop thinking of people in terms of their race, you'll understand that concept.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Common sense is incompatible with being drunk.

And unless someone forced alcohol down Brooks' throat at gunpoint, that's on him, too.

 

[toobfreak]

[

Why does it need to be re-examined? Because a bunch of Armchair Police Chiefs on the Internet saw a video and read a bunch of op-eds that got their feelz in an uproar?

He WAS someone with a record of violence, and whether he was or not, he WAS someone who was in the process of committing violence. I don't give a fuck if he had a gun or not, nor do I give a fuck about this constant refrain of "they had his car and ID", like that's some hallelujah moment of revelation. I don't care if they had his bank account and his fucking family tree all the way back to the 17th century. Anyone who thinks effective policing is done by standing around with your thumb up your ass, going, "Well, we can mosey by later tonight and pick him up" while someone who has just committed multiple felonies in the presence of police officers takes off down the street WITH THE OFFICER'S TASER is too stupid to be allowed out of the house without a babysitter.

And I am sure people like you consider kneeling on someone’s neck for 8 minutes until they are dead to be effective policing as well, why change or question anything they do, right?

Black and White bullshit argument. Unless someone is willing to question and challenge the police on everything, hand cuff them, restrain them in the very defense of their lives that they have to second guess every action they take even when their life could be on the line, then they must want to endorse needless brutality? Is that really the best you got?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL DOES:

• When the police use deadly force, it is in response to and to STOP a dangerous and unlawful action where lives are on the line.
• When the criminal uses deadly force, they are CREATING the problem being dealt with!

There is no 1:1 equivocacy here!

It does not matter that 1% of the police in 1% of the cases make bad calls, go too far, those are INDIVIDUAL problems needing addressed by individual removal or retraining, it does not mean we must reexamine the entire concept of a police force to keep society safe from the TOP DOWN, to the point of risking a social catastrophe!

SEVEN HUNDRED buildings in just one city alone have already been damaged or destroyed from this coddling of violent thugs under the PC guise of "racial reform." Thanks to the idiot PC Left, we are now farther from having racial equality and peace than perhaps any time in the past 60 years!

Actually...why not? Why is this such a sacred cow cow it can not even be put on the discussion?

And note, I am not talking about abolishing tbe police, that is not a realistic option. But what is wrong with looking at the entire way policing is done from training, selection and retention, community policing, militarization of police, use of lethal vs non lethal options....

Absolutely nothing. It's a great idea to look top down at everything, do a study, and clearly and calmly make changes in training or policy and procedure where it will improve safety and behavior for both the police and the public. BUT WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. These things may take months or more to do right. Without any rational study, we have taken the police, whom a few weeks ago along with hospital workers and others were being celebrated as heroes, and now vilified, demonized all of them as bloodthirsty, brutal enemies of society where if anything goes wrong, first kneejerk reaction is to fire the cop, arrest him and charge him as a criminal!

And like little kids with a trapped cat twisting its tail sadistically, blacks and anti-cop groups are now gleefully celebrating: "Look at what we can do, how we can fuck over a cop!" Have you read what Tas wrote about his brother?

At this rate, THERE WON'T BE ANY POLICE FORCE to reform in a few months, and there won't be any clear, calm, rational heads to do it with, everything now has collapsed overnight into total stupidity doing anything at any expense just to look politically correct.

 

[Richard-H]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Obviously Brooks made the fatal mistake of assuming that the Police would do their jobs correctly.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What evidence do you have that he is a threat to the community?

His driving drunk to the Wendy's in the first place. That put countless people in danger. Driving drunk puts everyone in the community at risk. He demonstrated he was a risk to the community long before the police were called on him. He was a threat to the community prior, and a threat to the community after.

Need I say more?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, all of those things were not only bad but unlawful but the penalty as prescribed by our laws for none of those actions is immediate death, particularly since he was attempting to escape and therefore was no longer posing a threat to the officers, as evidenced by the fact that he was shot in the back.

If you truly want to escape, you would do anything not to hinder your own ability to escape. That includes stealing a taser from and firing it at your pursuers, who happen to be armed with lethal weaponry. Common sense tells you you don't engage in behavior that would provoke them into killing you instead of simply capturing you.

Obviously Brooks made the fatal mistake of assuming that the Police would do their jobs correctly.

You would have let him flee. Congratulations, you are an anarchist.