Doc1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
This is all I have so far. Fox live stream
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GmRxH7GDU
Best
Doc
Best
Doc
CRIME Atlanta cop charged with murder (Atlanta cops resigning)
- Thread starter Doc1
- Start date
erichtmobile
Senior Member
Every cop in Atlanta should walk
Betty_Rose
Veteran Member
doctor_fungcool
TB Fanatic
We are entering the twilight zone
Betty_Rose
Veteran Member
Yes, we're entering the Twilight Zone but this cop - who just did the RIGHT THING - is now a casualty and for no good reason. His life is ruined. As is his family's life.
Even if he is ultimately exonerated in a court of law, nothing will ever be the same.
This is one of the scariest pieces of news that I have seen thus far. If I were in charge of a policeman's union, I'd tell them all to call in sick for a week.
I can't imagine that we'll ever find cops again to keep law and order.
Even if he is ultimately exonerated in a court of law, nothing will ever be the same.
This is one of the scariest pieces of news that I have seen thus far. If I were in charge of a policeman's union, I'd tell them all to call in sick for a week.
I can't imagine that we'll ever find cops again to keep law and order.
Bps1691
Veteran Member
IMHO we've gone all the way through the Twilight Zone and are half way through the outer limits!!!
Video 1:08 min
heelgeneral
Senior Member
This. Why anyone would want to be a cop in these times is beyond me. We're headed for complete anarchy.
Bps1691
Veteran Member
Darren Wilson, the policeman who was the left's villain in the thugs deaths in the Ferguson fiasco, life was totally ruined by the made up "hand's up, don't shoot" LIE.
Even after it was proved beyond the slightest doubt that the thug attacked the policeman through the car's window, the thugs DNA was found on the inside of the car and on the officer's gun from the thug trying to take it.
The vast majority of actual eye witnesses testified that after the officer left the car, the thug was charging the police officer even after he yelled for him to stop. Those that claimed the hands up don't shoot crap were proven to not have even been there when it happened!
And that LIE is still said on the propaganda media, by politicians and by rioters!
The insurgency that is taking place now has nothing to do with truth or actually trying to make anything better, they are an outright war to take down the republic and replace it with a communist government ran by the demon-crat elites.
IMHO the police in the blue cities and states should be filing for early retirements or looking hard for jobs somewhere, anywhere else outside of a blue state or city. If they stay around they'll not only be rolling the dice every day that they'll come home end of shift, but with the added bonus of when they'll get thrown under the bus and be faced with criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.
mzkitty
I give up.
Everybody loses. Because they shot him in the back.
*snip*
Atlanta police shooting autopsy reveals Rayshard Brooks suffered 2 gunshot wounds to the back, death ruled homicide
As the killing of a 27-year-old black man in an encounter with two white officers late Friday rekindled fiery protests in Atlanta and prompted the police chief’s resignation, the medical examiner on Sunday found Rayshard Brooks suffered two gunshot wounds to the back and his death has been ruled a homicide.
The office of Fulton County Medical Examiner performed an autopsy on Brooks on Sunday and said that the gunshot wounds to the back created organ failure because of blood loss.
*snip*
Atlanta police shooting autopsy reveals Rayshard Brooks suffered 2 gunshot wounds to the back, death ruled homicide
As the killing of a 27-year-old black man in an encounter with two white officers late Friday rekindled fiery protests in Atlanta and prompted the police chief’s resignation, the medical examiner on Sunday found Rayshard Brooks suffered two gunshot wounds to the back and his death has been ruled a homicide.
The office of Fulton County Medical Examiner performed an autopsy on Brooks on Sunday and said that the gunshot wounds to the back created organ failure because of blood loss.
night driver
ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Just disgusted.
It was pointed out that they followed all laws and procedures.
FUDGE!!
It was pointed out that they followed all laws and procedures.
FUDGE!!
Mikiekimi
I’m just here for the gasoline...
Wrong...the DA spelled out how he did not follow APD SOPs. He didn't follow all laws and procedures...
Nowski
Let's Go Brandon!
Peoples, you knew this is what was going to happen.
I am surprised, that they didn't charge him with capital murder.
Now he must be tried, found guilty of all charges,
or there will be more riots, and more fires.
White LEO simply need to quit.
It is the end of the transfer after all.
April 9th 1865 - The demise of the White race in the ZUSA
was guaranteed, when the wrong side won The Civil War.
1964 CRA - The POS African race, was place upon a
protected class pedestal, and the initial assault to make
the White race, a demographic minority race due to White guilt,
was begun.
1960 - The White race was 90% of the ZUSA population
2020 - The White race is now approx. 56% of the
ZUSA population.
November 4th 2008 - The 4th quarter, of the destruction
of the White race began.
Memorial Day 2020 - The end of the 4th quarter, of the destruction
of the White race, and it is now first and goal, with the POS Africans
driving towards the end zone, the White race is exhausted now,
and cannot stop the victorious POS Africans.
Peoples, if you are White, your race ain't part of the future
of the ZUSA. White race replacement demographics are negative,
not even replacing their dead.
It's over, wish it was otherwise, but it ain't. All you can do is arm up,
and be prepared to defend your house, which you will,
as the POS Africans, will be now moving into the White areas.
Please be safe everyone. Pray for the return of Christ.
Regards to all.
Nowski
I am surprised, that they didn't charge him with capital murder.
Now he must be tried, found guilty of all charges,
or there will be more riots, and more fires.
White LEO simply need to quit.
It is the end of the transfer after all.
April 9th 1865 - The demise of the White race in the ZUSA
was guaranteed, when the wrong side won The Civil War.
1964 CRA - The POS African race, was place upon a
protected class pedestal, and the initial assault to make
the White race, a demographic minority race due to White guilt,
was begun.
1960 - The White race was 90% of the ZUSA population
2020 - The White race is now approx. 56% of the
ZUSA population.
November 4th 2008 - The 4th quarter, of the destruction
of the White race began.
Memorial Day 2020 - The end of the 4th quarter, of the destruction
of the White race, and it is now first and goal, with the POS Africans
driving towards the end zone, the White race is exhausted now,
and cannot stop the victorious POS Africans.
Peoples, if you are White, your race ain't part of the future
of the ZUSA. White race replacement demographics are negative,
not even replacing their dead.
It's over, wish it was otherwise, but it ain't. All you can do is arm up,
and be prepared to defend your house, which you will,
as the POS Africans, will be now moving into the White areas.
Please be safe everyone. Pray for the return of Christ.
Regards to all.
Nowski
Every juror will have to vote for a conviction.
SmithJ
Veteran Member
Just to point out - if any one of you shot a guy in the back from 10 feet as he was running away in a parking lot, you would be charged with murder also.
A bad shoot is a bad shoot.
Now if some cops in Houston can finally be convicted for murdering Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas
A bad shoot is a bad shoot.
Now if some cops in Houston can finally be convicted for murdering Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas
Last edited:
Raggedyman
Res ipsa loquitur
well I'm not surprised at all. these guys are being sacrificed to keep the peace. what we are witnessing is a new low in the politics of race. Nowski's prediction of the two tiered justice system coming to life right before your eyes. for all her who do not believe that CWII is just over the horizon I strongly suggest you find and read Chittum's seminal work on the subject Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America (1996).
You are an idiot.
Doc1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Mzkitty wrote (in part) "Everybody loses. Because they shot him in the back."
We have fifty states and several territories, each which has it's own different laws. Most of these are similar, but some are very different.
Though this may surprise some here, in certain cases it's perfectly legal to shoot someone in the back! It depends on myriad factors. This doesn't stop the MSM pundits from pontificating on things most of them know little about and it certainly doesn't stop the MSM from shamelessly slanting their coverage to favor leftist/communist perspectives.
As others have posted here, you couldn't pay enough me to be a deputy in a blue city now.
Best
Doc
We have fifty states and several territories, each which has it's own different laws. Most of these are similar, but some are very different.
Though this may surprise some here, in certain cases it's perfectly legal to shoot someone in the back! It depends on myriad factors. This doesn't stop the MSM pundits from pontificating on things most of them know little about and it certainly doesn't stop the MSM from shamelessly slanting their coverage to favor leftist/communist perspectives.
As others have posted here, you couldn't pay enough me to be a deputy in a blue city now.
Best
Doc
mzkitty
I give up.
Rayshard Brooks video: Legal scholars break down key moments in shooting timeline
June 17, 2020
Rayshard Brooks was asleep in his car in a Wendy’s drive-through Friday night when police arrived.
A little more than 40 minutes later an officer shot and killed him.
Video footage released by the Atlanta Police Department captures the timeline leading up to Brooks’ death, ruled a homicide by the Fulton County Medical Examiner on Sunday. Through a combination of the officer’s body camera, dash camera and Wendy’s surveillance, the footage reveals key decisions by the officers involved, and important context that may be presented in potential criminal or civil trials.
Research shows that rewatching violent videos can traumatize viewers and lead to mental health struggles. To help readers understand what happens in the video without them having to view it multiple times, USA TODAY spoke with four law professors who analyzed the footage in a legal context.
Brooks consents to search for weapons
Officer Devin Brosnan is the first to arrive on scene. After he wakes Brooks and directs him to pull his car away from the drive-thru line and into a parking space, Brosnan asks if Brooks has a weapon and if he can conduct a search.
The search is critical for two reasons, according to experts.
“It does show he is cooperative,” said Kenneth B. Nunn, professor of law at University of Florida’s Levin College of Law. “And the other thing that’s very important about the search is they patted him down, he’s out of the car, never gets back in the car, so officers know he does not have a weapon.”
That knowledge becomes more crucial later as officers use force in restraining, then shooting Brooks.
“The argument is, when officers show up, they’re primed and thinking this is going to be a potentially deadly conflict. So just reaching for your wallet makes them think there might be a weapon,” Nunn said. “But you really can’t make that argument here.”
Nunn referenced the 1999 case of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed Black man shot 19 times by New York City police officers after reaching for his wallet, which police thought was a gun. The four officers involved were acquitted.
Katherine Macfarlane, an associate professor of law at the University of Idaho, whose essay “Foreseeable Police Shootings” was published in the Columbia Law Review Forum in January, said the decision to pat down Brooks may have been the start of escalating tensions.
“What about this suddenly turns into fear of Mr. Brooks having a weapon on him?” Macfarlane said. “Even just the mention, just the question whether you’re armed even though I know it’s routine, I think turns this into an encounter that now feels much more dangerous than it did just a few minutes before.”
If she were representing Brooks’ family in a civil case, Macfarlane says, she’d want everyone involved to see the early footage, well before the shooting took place. The question, she says, is whether even the initial response was warranted, and whether the fatal results could have been expected based on that initial response.
“If we back it up and back it up to the extent that this wasn’t deescalated, was it foreseeable that something violent as going to happen?” Macfarlane said.
“What was going through these officers’ minds? Did they not know what’s happening around the country and the care to be taken in these kinds of interactions?”
Brooks asks if he can leave his car and walk
Over the course of seven minutes, Brooks is asked to take field sobriety tests conducted by the officers. At one point, about 38 minutes into the encounter, Brooks asks if he can lock his car and walk to his sister’s house a short distance away.
Experts agree officers have a lot leeway when it comes to arresting a person they believe has committed a crime, including a charge like driving while impaired.
“This is, I think, one of the key moments here,” said David Harris, professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. “Police officers always have discretion on how they will handle any particular situation with very limited exceptions.”
Up to that point, police had not administered a breathalyzer test. Harris said that test may not have been necessary if Brooks was willing and able to walk home, therefore not endangering the public by driving while impaired.
“It might be that lots of officers would make the arrest anyway. But there is a choice being made here. The police do not have to arrest him. They don’t even have to give him a breath test,” Harris said. The officer could have said “OK, leave the car there, leave the keys with me and I’ll drive the keys over to sister’s house and you walk home. Or I’ll give you a ride or get an Uber or whatever.
“Nobody says he has to make an arrest here. The law does not require it.”
Officers decide to arrest Brooks
Brooks consents to a breathalyzer test a little less than 40 minutes after being detained. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, he fails. Officer
Garrett Rolfe then says: “I think you had too much to drink to be driving. Put your hands behind your back for me,” according to body camera footage.
Macfarlane said police are given broad constitutional authority to arrest someone or continue to detain them when there is probable cause that they have committed a crime. After Brooks failed the breathalyzer test, and even before, they had enough probable cause to continue to detain him, she says.
“But what I hope we’re all getting out of this conversation is we’ve gone way too far,” she said. “The common-sense approach to these conversations is to give him a ride home or let someone come and pick him up.”
Trevor Gardner, an associate professor of law at Washington University School of Law, suggests police could consider allowing officers to issue summons to appear in court as opposed to arresting them.
“Do we need to arrest for each and every criminal violation?” Gardner said. “Brooks offered to walk to his sister’s house from the scene of the police stop, presumably after the officers had collected his identifying information. Under these facts, an arrest might be considered an unnecessary escalation.”
Brooks resists arrest, takes officer’s Taser
As officers try to handcuff Brooks, he resists and a skirmish ensues.
“In the midst of this explosion of concern over African Americans and the police and he’s reading and watching the same things on TV that all the rest of us are, he’s stopped by police and it looks like they're not being reasonable and taking a long time and he begins to worry," suggested Nunn, who also serves as the assistant director of the criminal justice center at the University of Florida.
Brooks and the two officers fall to the ground, where Brosnan reaches for his Taser and tries to use it. Brooks grabs for it and at one point punches the officer.
Experts agree that as Brooks resists, the question of the appropriate level of police force is raised.
'Lawful but awful':Atlanta police had better options than lethal force in Rayshard Brooks shooting, experts say
Harris, who hosts the podcast Criminal Injustice, says the basic rules regarding reasonable use of force are fairly consistent across police departments.
“The basic idea is that force is divided into levels, usually I think in terms of six levels, and you’re allowed as a police officer to use enough force to overcome the resistance you face,” Harris said. “If you’re facing no resistance you don’t get to use any force except what’s necessary to handcuff an individual.”
As Brooks pulled away, Harris says officers would be allowed to use enough force to overcome Brooks' resistance.
“While wrestling with him on the ground, God forbid they tried to shoot him – that’d plainly be wrong. They don’t do that, they try to use a Taser on him and that’s not considered lethal force, though some people die from that if done poorly.”
Nunn, however, argues that had officers shot Brooks while they were all on the ground, officers could have argued that Brooks was reaching for their weapons and they feared for their lives. In that case the shooting may have been a justifiable amount of force, Nunn says.
“Had they shot him at that point, it’d be a much harder case for the prosecution,” he said.
Brooks runs, police shoot
In the culminating moments of the interaction, Brooks is seen on surveillance footage running from the officers. In his hand is Brosnan’s Taser, which Brooks turns and fires at Rolfe. After Brooks unsuccessfully deploys the Taser, Rolfe reaches for his handgun and fires three shots as Brooks runs. Brooks falls.
This is the main point of focus for Gardner, who says the first step is to look at Georgia law with respect to deadly force.
“The question is whether the officer reasonably believed this course was necessary to prevent the officer’s death or suffering serious bodily injury,” Gardner said.
“There’s a challenge here because on the one hand, Brooks is running away and the officer shoots him twice in the back. Those facts make the situation particularly tragic. Someone being shot in the back, that’s a very difficult scenario to process by the public, the African American community in particular.”
But in envisioning how a prosecutor may approach a criminal case against Rolfe, Gardner says Brooks’ possession and deployment of the Taser would be taken into consideration.
“It feels like a bang-bang situation where the officer then pulls out a firearm in response to the Taser being pointed at him and deploying,” Garner said. “When the officer shoots, Brooks is already turned around and continuing to run. So under that particular circumstance there’s a question of whether the officer reasonably believed at the point he shoots his weapon, that he had to shoot that weapon in order to prevent great bodily injury.”
The fact that the time frame is so short between the point where Brooks ineffectively deploys the Taser and continues to run, and when Rolfe fires his gun, could make it challenging for prosecutors, Garner said.
“If Brooks is running away without a Taser, and an officer shoots him twice in the back, obviously that’s much easier for a prosecutor to show deadly force was not necessary,” Garner said. “But the Taser alone may not be enough for an officer to demonstrate that he was at risk of serious bodily injury.”
In his view, Harris says there is no visible threat of death or serious injury, noting that because of the prior pat down, officers know the only weapon in Brooks’ possession is the Taser.
“By the time the officer gets his firearm into his hand and takes aim there is no deadly threat as I see it,” he said.
By early Sunday, Atlanta Police Department Sergeant John Chafee confirmed to USA TODAY that Rolfe, who was hired in October 2013, was fired for shooting Brooks. Brosnan was placed on administrative duty. No announcement has been made as to whether the officers will face criminal charges.
Nunn says that if criminal charges are pursued, they will likely be a form of criminal negligence, as Georgia does not have a charge of second or third-degree murder.
“I don’t think there’s going to be sufficient evidence from what we see to establish an intent to kill,” Nunn said. “I think that takes murder off of the table.”
Macfarlane said that a civil case will also be difficult if the family chooses to litigate.
“When you bring a civil rights action for an incident like this, you can argue that the Constitution was violated in different ways and you’re entitled to money damages. One of the claims here might be a violation of the 4th Amendment, you used force that was unreasonable, and we get that reasonable language from the 4th Amendment itself.”
A defense to the excessive use of force claim that Macfarlane would expect is that officers are allowed to make a reasonable mistake. She likens it to situations like the Diallo case in which officers mistook a wallet for a gun.
If the officer is able to argue that he feared for his life, the life of others or feared serious bodily injury, then “made a split-second decision, we allow officers to make them and the result is what it is,” Macfarlane said.
“What I wish we would think about more as a country is everything that happened before, and every single choice those police officers had to walk away, to give him a ride home, to let him call all the people he was mentioning that live nearby,” Macfarlane said. “I think there’s room to start thinking about that legally, too.”
June 17, 2020
Rayshard Brooks was asleep in his car in a Wendy’s drive-through Friday night when police arrived.
A little more than 40 minutes later an officer shot and killed him.
Video footage released by the Atlanta Police Department captures the timeline leading up to Brooks’ death, ruled a homicide by the Fulton County Medical Examiner on Sunday. Through a combination of the officer’s body camera, dash camera and Wendy’s surveillance, the footage reveals key decisions by the officers involved, and important context that may be presented in potential criminal or civil trials.
Research shows that rewatching violent videos can traumatize viewers and lead to mental health struggles. To help readers understand what happens in the video without them having to view it multiple times, USA TODAY spoke with four law professors who analyzed the footage in a legal context.
Brooks consents to search for weapons
Officer Devin Brosnan is the first to arrive on scene. After he wakes Brooks and directs him to pull his car away from the drive-thru line and into a parking space, Brosnan asks if Brooks has a weapon and if he can conduct a search.
The search is critical for two reasons, according to experts.
“It does show he is cooperative,” said Kenneth B. Nunn, professor of law at University of Florida’s Levin College of Law. “And the other thing that’s very important about the search is they patted him down, he’s out of the car, never gets back in the car, so officers know he does not have a weapon.”
That knowledge becomes more crucial later as officers use force in restraining, then shooting Brooks.
“The argument is, when officers show up, they’re primed and thinking this is going to be a potentially deadly conflict. So just reaching for your wallet makes them think there might be a weapon,” Nunn said. “But you really can’t make that argument here.”
Nunn referenced the 1999 case of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed Black man shot 19 times by New York City police officers after reaching for his wallet, which police thought was a gun. The four officers involved were acquitted.
Katherine Macfarlane, an associate professor of law at the University of Idaho, whose essay “Foreseeable Police Shootings” was published in the Columbia Law Review Forum in January, said the decision to pat down Brooks may have been the start of escalating tensions.
“What about this suddenly turns into fear of Mr. Brooks having a weapon on him?” Macfarlane said. “Even just the mention, just the question whether you’re armed even though I know it’s routine, I think turns this into an encounter that now feels much more dangerous than it did just a few minutes before.”
If she were representing Brooks’ family in a civil case, Macfarlane says, she’d want everyone involved to see the early footage, well before the shooting took place. The question, she says, is whether even the initial response was warranted, and whether the fatal results could have been expected based on that initial response.
“If we back it up and back it up to the extent that this wasn’t deescalated, was it foreseeable that something violent as going to happen?” Macfarlane said.
“What was going through these officers’ minds? Did they not know what’s happening around the country and the care to be taken in these kinds of interactions?”
Brooks asks if he can leave his car and walk
Over the course of seven minutes, Brooks is asked to take field sobriety tests conducted by the officers. At one point, about 38 minutes into the encounter, Brooks asks if he can lock his car and walk to his sister’s house a short distance away.
Experts agree officers have a lot leeway when it comes to arresting a person they believe has committed a crime, including a charge like driving while impaired.
“This is, I think, one of the key moments here,” said David Harris, professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. “Police officers always have discretion on how they will handle any particular situation with very limited exceptions.”
Up to that point, police had not administered a breathalyzer test. Harris said that test may not have been necessary if Brooks was willing and able to walk home, therefore not endangering the public by driving while impaired.
“It might be that lots of officers would make the arrest anyway. But there is a choice being made here. The police do not have to arrest him. They don’t even have to give him a breath test,” Harris said. The officer could have said “OK, leave the car there, leave the keys with me and I’ll drive the keys over to sister’s house and you walk home. Or I’ll give you a ride or get an Uber or whatever.
“Nobody says he has to make an arrest here. The law does not require it.”
Officers decide to arrest Brooks
Brooks consents to a breathalyzer test a little less than 40 minutes after being detained. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, he fails. Officer
Garrett Rolfe then says: “I think you had too much to drink to be driving. Put your hands behind your back for me,” according to body camera footage.
Macfarlane said police are given broad constitutional authority to arrest someone or continue to detain them when there is probable cause that they have committed a crime. After Brooks failed the breathalyzer test, and even before, they had enough probable cause to continue to detain him, she says.
“But what I hope we’re all getting out of this conversation is we’ve gone way too far,” she said. “The common-sense approach to these conversations is to give him a ride home or let someone come and pick him up.”
Trevor Gardner, an associate professor of law at Washington University School of Law, suggests police could consider allowing officers to issue summons to appear in court as opposed to arresting them.
“Do we need to arrest for each and every criminal violation?” Gardner said. “Brooks offered to walk to his sister’s house from the scene of the police stop, presumably after the officers had collected his identifying information. Under these facts, an arrest might be considered an unnecessary escalation.”
Brooks resists arrest, takes officer’s Taser
As officers try to handcuff Brooks, he resists and a skirmish ensues.
“In the midst of this explosion of concern over African Americans and the police and he’s reading and watching the same things on TV that all the rest of us are, he’s stopped by police and it looks like they're not being reasonable and taking a long time and he begins to worry," suggested Nunn, who also serves as the assistant director of the criminal justice center at the University of Florida.
Brooks and the two officers fall to the ground, where Brosnan reaches for his Taser and tries to use it. Brooks grabs for it and at one point punches the officer.
Experts agree that as Brooks resists, the question of the appropriate level of police force is raised.
'Lawful but awful':Atlanta police had better options than lethal force in Rayshard Brooks shooting, experts say
Harris, who hosts the podcast Criminal Injustice, says the basic rules regarding reasonable use of force are fairly consistent across police departments.
“The basic idea is that force is divided into levels, usually I think in terms of six levels, and you’re allowed as a police officer to use enough force to overcome the resistance you face,” Harris said. “If you’re facing no resistance you don’t get to use any force except what’s necessary to handcuff an individual.”
As Brooks pulled away, Harris says officers would be allowed to use enough force to overcome Brooks' resistance.
“While wrestling with him on the ground, God forbid they tried to shoot him – that’d plainly be wrong. They don’t do that, they try to use a Taser on him and that’s not considered lethal force, though some people die from that if done poorly.”
Nunn, however, argues that had officers shot Brooks while they were all on the ground, officers could have argued that Brooks was reaching for their weapons and they feared for their lives. In that case the shooting may have been a justifiable amount of force, Nunn says.
“Had they shot him at that point, it’d be a much harder case for the prosecution,” he said.
Brooks runs, police shoot
In the culminating moments of the interaction, Brooks is seen on surveillance footage running from the officers. In his hand is Brosnan’s Taser, which Brooks turns and fires at Rolfe. After Brooks unsuccessfully deploys the Taser, Rolfe reaches for his handgun and fires three shots as Brooks runs. Brooks falls.
This is the main point of focus for Gardner, who says the first step is to look at Georgia law with respect to deadly force.
“The question is whether the officer reasonably believed this course was necessary to prevent the officer’s death or suffering serious bodily injury,” Gardner said.
“There’s a challenge here because on the one hand, Brooks is running away and the officer shoots him twice in the back. Those facts make the situation particularly tragic. Someone being shot in the back, that’s a very difficult scenario to process by the public, the African American community in particular.”
But in envisioning how a prosecutor may approach a criminal case against Rolfe, Gardner says Brooks’ possession and deployment of the Taser would be taken into consideration.
“It feels like a bang-bang situation where the officer then pulls out a firearm in response to the Taser being pointed at him and deploying,” Garner said. “When the officer shoots, Brooks is already turned around and continuing to run. So under that particular circumstance there’s a question of whether the officer reasonably believed at the point he shoots his weapon, that he had to shoot that weapon in order to prevent great bodily injury.”
The fact that the time frame is so short between the point where Brooks ineffectively deploys the Taser and continues to run, and when Rolfe fires his gun, could make it challenging for prosecutors, Garner said.
“If Brooks is running away without a Taser, and an officer shoots him twice in the back, obviously that’s much easier for a prosecutor to show deadly force was not necessary,” Garner said. “But the Taser alone may not be enough for an officer to demonstrate that he was at risk of serious bodily injury.”
In his view, Harris says there is no visible threat of death or serious injury, noting that because of the prior pat down, officers know the only weapon in Brooks’ possession is the Taser.
“By the time the officer gets his firearm into his hand and takes aim there is no deadly threat as I see it,” he said.
By early Sunday, Atlanta Police Department Sergeant John Chafee confirmed to USA TODAY that Rolfe, who was hired in October 2013, was fired for shooting Brooks. Brosnan was placed on administrative duty. No announcement has been made as to whether the officers will face criminal charges.
Nunn says that if criminal charges are pursued, they will likely be a form of criminal negligence, as Georgia does not have a charge of second or third-degree murder.
“I don’t think there’s going to be sufficient evidence from what we see to establish an intent to kill,” Nunn said. “I think that takes murder off of the table.”
Macfarlane said that a civil case will also be difficult if the family chooses to litigate.
“When you bring a civil rights action for an incident like this, you can argue that the Constitution was violated in different ways and you’re entitled to money damages. One of the claims here might be a violation of the 4th Amendment, you used force that was unreasonable, and we get that reasonable language from the 4th Amendment itself.”
A defense to the excessive use of force claim that Macfarlane would expect is that officers are allowed to make a reasonable mistake. She likens it to situations like the Diallo case in which officers mistook a wallet for a gun.
If the officer is able to argue that he feared for his life, the life of others or feared serious bodily injury, then “made a split-second decision, we allow officers to make them and the result is what it is,” Macfarlane said.
“What I wish we would think about more as a country is everything that happened before, and every single choice those police officers had to walk away, to give him a ride home, to let him call all the people he was mentioning that live nearby,” Macfarlane said. “I think there’s room to start thinking about that legally, too.”
Rayshard Brooks video: Legal scholars break down key moments in shooting timeline
Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by Atlanta police June 12. Bodycam, dashcam and Wendy's surveillance video show key points in the confrontation.
www.usatoday.com
Mikiekimi
I’m just here for the gasoline...
Yup...the DA pretty clearly spelled out what APD policy is and how it was violated.
Actually, according to Fox News, the second officer will be a state witness against his partner.
Raggedyman
Res ipsa loquitur
they will literally be coerced into doing so - the "holdouts" intimidated by threats of "what will happen in the streets if we fail to convict"
Raggedyman
Res ipsa loquitur
WHY
can they not simply comply and air their grievances later?
can they not simply comply and air their grievances later?
33dInd
Veteran Member
Ya know. We used to let drunks call a ride or taxi.
then madd got on our ass about so we started to arrest all drunks
Then the states MANDATED we arrest and file STATE charges rather than local
Even a drunk who pulls off the road cause he knows he can’t drive. If you have the keys or are behind the wheel
And states can file charges against an officer if he doesn’t arrest a drunk. The mothers against drunks did that. But rightly so cause I saw several who shoulda been piped let go
then madd got on our ass about so we started to arrest all drunks
Then the states MANDATED we arrest and file STATE charges rather than local
Even a drunk who pulls off the road cause he knows he can’t drive. If you have the keys or are behind the wheel
And states can file charges against an officer if he doesn’t arrest a drunk. The mothers against drunks did that. But rightly so cause I saw several who shoulda been piped let go
SmithJ
Veteran Member
Well, most of the people involved in these incidents already don't have a history of making good choices, right?
Add in the factor that many are intoxicated or under the influence of some drug and it is not surprising really that they would not comply.
This same situation has, I'm sure, happened many times daily across the country. The vast majority of cops I would hazard a guess would NOT have shot the guy. They would have chased him down or picked him up later.
Cops have a hard job and are entrusted with a LOT of power. They need to use it wisely or face the consequences.
We are already a War Zone. Two more Cops were ambushed yestarday or overnight-both female. One Black and one Hispanic.
We are in the early stages of South Africa and a Communist/Socialist take-over. not the Twilight Zone.
Well, those of us sitting at home watching are going to be the last they round up-they will start with the loudmouthes Agitators first-BLM, Antifa, Boogaloo Bois and so forth-the named ones will be rounded up and eliminated-anyone in the Rioting vids, at the Washington compound and so on? Dead. The ones they know will be the most dangerous, then they will remove the MSM mouthpieces and the Politicians who assisted them also knowing those people have sway over the populace. Then they will come for the Hardcore gun guys, Militia and so forth. Us? Low flags on the totem pole-they might round us up or simply give the option to Comply or else.
Sid Vicious
Veteran Member
Did no one watch the video? Scumbag turned while running (back still presented) and shot the taser. I hope the police quit.
There are several charges against that officer, too, including up to 20 yrs for standing on the perp's shoulder when he was down. Officer said he thought it was his arm. In the photo it's too far and grainy for me to tell. Either way, I think there were three charges leveled at him. He will make a public statement in a few days. Of course, with several charges and decades of time leveled against him, he may feel pressured to be a state's witness against the other cop.
TKO
Veteran Member
Soon, it will be against the law to arrest a black...even if they are caught in the middle of a crime.