It was the same bright yellow taser that he took off the officer. He was otherwise unarmed. They knew this because they searched him before giving him the field sobriety tests. Try to acquaint yourself with the facts before commenting on the case.
So a violent suspect points something that could be a gun and what should police do? I wouldn't want to bet my life that he was pointing a stolen taser and not a real gun.
Between the video I posted and the video captured in this NYT article you have a full picture of what occurred.
How Rayshard Brooks Was Fatally Shot by the Atlanta Police (Published 2020)
One officer has been fired and another placed on administrative duty. A Times video analysis shows the sequence of events leading to the fatal shooting.www.nytimes.com
I don't know what model Taser was used but if its a single shot T26P then the officer and Atlanta have no case whatsoever.
The millisecond that he fired the taser at the officer he became nothing more than a rabbit to chase down and tackle.
A single shot taser is useless piece of plastic if its fired and it misses.
In my opinion, I think the officers were not justified in using lethal force but I would expect that officer training played a role in this and could be used by attorneys to shift blame from the officers to Atlanta
"Point anything at me and I'm going to kill you"
Actually they showed a vid today where they gave him the breathalyzer, everyone seemed calm. Then they told him he was under arrest and started to slowly cuff him, they didn't get far, he was combative right from the start. Still, the cop did not need to shoot him 3 times in the back, they had his car and his address already.One could argue that if hit with the taser the officer would have be at risk for death (the guy could come back and beat him up). However I don't buy the argument as I believe two officers were there and he was clearly running away.
The officers could have de-escalated the situation well prior. Or the could have used non-lethal weapons and tactics. However they chose to kill him which is clearly wrong..I'm not holding by breath they'll be convicted but I firmly believe it was a wrongful death.
They knew, he had been frisked for weapons earlier.The only thing this cop knew with certainty was the the suspect was firing a weapon in their direction. He couldn't know that it was a tazer, a bb gun, or a real gun that the suspect pulled out of his waistband. Don't discharge weapons at cops and then become outraged when the cops shoot back. SMH.
So a violent suspect points something that could be a gun and what should police do? I wouldn't want to bet my life that he was pointing a stolen taser and not a real gun.
I did not know that he was patted down. I'm sure that pat downs are not 100# effective 100% of the time. It seems to me that there's a fair amount of chaos and confusion in that situation, so much so that cop #2 was running for cover even after the suspect was shot and even after "knowing" that the suspect had a tazer and not a gun. I'm sure some people think that cops should be above all of that and be able to make perfect split second decisions all the time, and if they can't then the shouldn't be cops. I think that's an impossible standard. I probably wouldn't fight with a cop, steal his tazer and then shoot it at him and expect not to be shot. <shrug>
"Let" (allowed)Probably that he let his taser be stolen which helped precipitate the incident?
We've seen so many reports of cops being bad or good.. but the ones where a cop let his taser or his gun been stolen?
How often have you heard that?
...and then he got on top of them and forcibly took things.It couldn't be a gun as the cops had already searched him.
That lesson of compliance worked oh so well for George Floyd.I'm sorry, but until we teach people that running from the cops (and fighting back after being tackled to the ground) WILL NEVER SERVE YOU WELL then we will continue to have these problems.
That lesson of compliance worked oh so well for George Floyd.
Because Brooks had a non-lethal weapon he took from the officer, was running and was shot in the back.
Police can use deadly force to protect their own lives. They can't use it to gun down someone who is trying to escape a DUI arrest.
The proper procedure was to get into the car and follow him, and call for backup. Or he could have just let him run away. He wasn't going to escape arrest for long. They had his car and probably his license!
He had just overpowered BOTH officers and taken a weapon from them. Hard to end it sooner without resorting to MORE forceful tactics sooner or just letting him go. Disabling an officer with a taser lets you do a little more than just return and beat him up since, you know, the officer has another weapon he could also take. He wasn't likely to get that gun since there was a second officer but he had just proven he was willing to take their weapons by force and use them against them.One could argue that if hit with the taser the officer would have be at risk for death (the guy could come back and beat him up). However I don't buy the argument as I believe two officers were there and he was clearly running away.
The officers could have de-escalated the situation well prior. Or the could have used non-lethal weapons and tactics. However they chose to kill him which is clearly wrong..I'm not holding by breath they'll be convicted but I firmly believe it was a wrongful death.
He was also intoxicated and they had just woke him so perhaps he was delirious, not fully awake, thought he was dreaming, etc.As to why Brooks tried to get away, it obviously wasn't a rational decision. He was moderately intoxicated. But my best guess is that he was worried they were going to sit on his neck like George Floyd. I imagine that seeing a video like that, which basically everyone in the country has seen, is going to cause varying behaviors when one encounters police. Ranging from extreme compliance to aggression and evasion. All motivated by fear.
Agreed.Shooting the guy was not a necessity. In the greater context of what's been happening, it was extremely stupid.
Many classify Tasers as "less lethal weapons" but, either way, disabling an officer with a taser gives you access to his gun. This man had already demonstrated that he was willing to take a weapon from an officer and turn it against them and overpowered both to do it.I saw the video, and the notion of "in the back" is sort of wrong. The man turned enough to fire the taser. It was completely ineffective of course. But it was that same split second the officer fired in response. Sure he hit him in the back, that I have no doubt, but it wasn't for nothing. It was for discharging the taser at the officer.
Is that right or wrong?
I suppose they haven't had to face that issue enough to make a crystal clear policy. Do officers consider the taser a deadly weapon or not? I think their prevailing wisdom is "not" (though I dispute that). So there is no reason to shoot, especially after the taser shot missed. Therefore it was wrong for him to shoot. There was no justification for it.
If he wasn't interested in harming the police, well, he did take their weapon, point it at them, and pull the trigger after fighting them. I think overpowering two officers to steal their less lethal weapon is a violent felony and using it against them could allow him to take a proper gun too if they weren't going to respond with lethal force.But my point is this: he was RUNNING. He wasn't interested in harming the police. The taser he took was a non--lethal deterrent that he was using to get away. There was no need to shoot him. They could have picked him up later. They didn't even have to chase him when he ran. He didn't have a deadly weapon and they had his address.
Lethal force can't be used to prevent an escape except in narrow situations where the person is suspected of a violent felony and is armed with a deadly weapon.
Agreed, but I can see how he may not consider the other officer in that moment where he believes he may be disabled and have his service weapon turned against him.I also believe he was intoxicated and that was the root of the initial contact. The body cam footage shows the cops trying to tase him and the two were over powered. I don't however think the use of a lethal weapon was appropriate here though. The officer wasn't alone so his partner could have justifiably prevented the guy from circling backcoming back and using his gun agains him.
They should have pursued him and called in some backup. The man was guilty of being intoxicated and resisting arrest. Neither justify homicide.
We also need to ramp up smart gun tech and make it mandatory for all law enforcement sidearms.
He already failed the field sobriety test. Yes, if someone operating a motor vehicle falls asleep behind the wheel in traffic there is reason enough to believe he might be imparied. The caller may also have reported that he seemed intoxicated.why is he being breathalyzed? was there any suspicion that he might be drunk? if not, let him go.
and he has your taser? let him run. it's not like the dude is going to become an international fugitive trying to slip in and out of countries.
So tasers do not have a "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." according to you?
The death rate of people by tasers would HIGHLY disagree with that statement good sir.
I mean you guys DO understand that the whole game of "running from the cops" and trying to assault them is not something that happens in other countries right? Especially if you just got pulled over and had a sobriety test, breathalyzer, etc...
I'm sorry, but until we teach people that running from the cops (and fighting back after being tackled to the ground) WILL NEVER SERVE YOU WELL then we will continue to have these problems.
The entire incident
The police and our culture have embraced tasers as the end all be all non lethal weapon.
Rayshard should not have been killed for pointing a non lethal weapon at an officer.
There is no excuse for that.
That entire interaction seemed to be going fine and I don't see racism as the issue with that officers reaction. I see more it more as a result of the militarization of American police where "neutralize the perceived threat as soon as possible with lethal force" is so drilled into their training.
Did I miss a post. Who said that?lol I love how some people are turning this into a "Why did he have to be arrested? Why couldn't they just have had a family member come pick him up?"
Because he was fucking driving intoxicated for fucks sake.
Next are we going to have a bunch of people come in here to tell me about how we should reform things and allow people to drive home drunk even though it's a huge leading cause of people's deaths ?
So tasers do not have a "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." according to you?
The death rate of people by tasers would HIGHLY disagree with that statement good sir.
I mean you guys DO understand that the whole game of "running from the cops" and trying to assault them is not something that happens in other countries right? Especially if you just got pulled over and had a sobriety test, breathalyzer, etc...
I'm sorry, but until we teach people that running from the cops (and fighting back after being tackled to the ground) WILL NEVER SERVE YOU WELL then we will continue to have these problems.
Tasers have a 1.4% fatality rate. Whether that is a "significant risk of death" is up to courts to decide. The police do classify the taser as non-lethal. And it should be noted that most of the fatalities occur in severely intoxicated people.
Whatever he did, it was clear under the circumstances that he was trying to get away rather than cause harm. It's irrelevant that he made a stupid decision. That part is obviously on him. But for the cops' part, why did they need to escalate the situation by chasing after him with guns drawn on foot? They wouldn't have been in whatever danger the taser posed if they had just let him run. They were going to get him later on either way.
If he wasn't interested in harming the police, well, he did take their weapon, point it at them, and pull the trigger after fighting them. I think overpowering two officers to steal their less lethal weapon is a violent felony and using it against them could allow him to take a proper gun too if they weren't going to respond with lethal force.
I agree that they should have let him go but hindsight is 20/20.
I find you sudden concern of the possible death from tasers fascinating.So tasers do not have a "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." according to you?
The death rate of people by tasers would HIGHLY disagree with that statement good sir.
I mean you guys DO understand that the whole game of "running from the cops" and trying to assault them is not something that happens in other countries right? Especially if you just got pulled over and had a sobriety test, breathalyzer, etc...
I'm sorry, but until we teach people that running from the cops (and fighting back after being tackled to the ground) WILL NEVER SERVE YOU WELL then we will continue to have these problems.
He wasn't driving ! Why do you need to lie?lol I love how some people are turning this into a "Why did he have to be arrested? Why couldn't they just have had a family member come pick him up?"
Because he was fucking driving intoxicated for fucks sake.
Next are we going to have a bunch of people come in here to tell me about how we should reform things and allow people to drive home drunk even though it's a huge leading cause of people's deaths ?
He wasn't driving ! Why do you need to lie?