Black man shoots taser at white police officer. Officer then shoots and kills man. Officer gets fired

[Lanyap]

He might surrender himself, maybe, but what I'm really suggesting is that they come to his house and arrest him a few hours later. They had to know that his state of intoxication at the time was a factor in his behavior.

Not really sure why you assume I was referring to him surrendering voluntarily. That is possible, though unlikely. Also not sure why you implicitly assume that he would have behaved the same way some time later as he did at the scene. Even if you're right that he was on parole, his judgment was clearly impaired.

I'm still trying to catch up from the last few days but I thought I would make a few points here. The reason the cops could not just let him walk home, call an Uber or just give him a summons to appear later is because he had a Ohio driver's license, he had a rental car and he was disoriented and did not know where is was. The Ohio driver's license was brought up on the Don Lemon show the other night when he was interviewing one of the cop's attorneys. It was apparently recorded on one of the body cams. That would explain why the cops had no choice but to arrest him at that point. That, IMO, triggered the change from passive to aggressive behavior and to fight and flee since he was still on probation (see below) and would certainly go back to prison.

Here are a couple of recent articles with interviews from his father in Toledo, Ohio. Brooks lived with him most of 2019 and also worked there. He told his father that he planned to go back to Georgia and bring his family back up to live in Toledo where he could get his job back and start a new life. That would explain the Ohio driver's license.

This website is unavailable in your location. – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta

www.wsbtv.com

While Rayshard Brooks' death gets national attention, a Toledo family mourns a son and brother

Brooks, whose death during a confrontation with Atlanta Police has only added to a volatile relationship between law enforcement and black people throughout the country, had recently lived in Toledo, where some of his family still reside.

www.13abc.com

Rayshard Brooks remembered for hard work and dedication to family

The family and co-workers of Rayshard Brooks, the 27-year-old shot by Atlanta police say he was a kind-hearted, hard-working man.

abcnews.go.com

This article explains the criminal history and how it fit together.

The charges to which Brooks pleaded guilty and for which he was still on probation dated back to August 2014 when he was convicted on four counts – False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children.

He was tried in Clayton County and sentenced to seven years on the first count, with one year in prison and six on probation and 12 months for each of the other three counts, sentences to be served concurrently.

His sentence was revised, and he was sent back to prison for 12 months in July 2016 when he violated the terms of his probation.

Brooks had not been in trouble since that year until last December when he went to Ohio without informing his probation officer and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

That warrant was revoked and the case dismissed when he returned to Georgia on January 6.

Rayshard Brooks was on probation and DUI could have led to prison

The charges to which Rayshard Brooks pleaded guilty and for which he was still on probation were from 2014. He was shot and killed outside a Wendy's in Atlanta on Friday, June 12.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Of course, all of this information does not justify shooting him in the back while fleeing but it does explain some of the factors involved.

Finally, this interview with Brooks showed up recently.

Before death, Rayshard Brooks shared his struggle for redemption

Before Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by a police officer, he spoke in February with the group Reconnect about his life after incarceration and working towards redemption. CNN's Randi

www.news-herald.com

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes I have and stop diverting.

Are you intentionally not understanding my question? I asked about the case he layed out in his press briefing about this case. Can you poke holes in it?

I didn't watch but part of the briefing. I don't need to poke any holes in it. The court will sort it out. I've already posted my thoughts on the matter.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I didn't watch but part of the briefing. I don't need to poke any holes in it. The court will sort it out. I've already posted my thoughts on the matter.

You didn't seem to add anything to the conversation. Hopefully in the future you will leave pointless posts out of this dialog.

 

[pcgeek11]

You didn't seem to add anything to the conversation. Hopefully in the future you will leave pointless posts out of this dialog.

I feel the same way about your posts.

 

[HumblePie]

I feel the same way about your posts.

He did this with me last time. He asked question A but gets mad because if you answer the question because he assumes you should have mind read him about his question B and answered that as well. Also, just because he asks a general question to the forum doesn't mean everyone has to drop everything they are doing to answer it. Heck, doesn't mean it will get answered at all.

The one thing about the Georgia DA I am upset about is he decided to charge without the investigation even remotely being done on the case which he is suppose to be waiting for.

 

[zzyzxroad]

He did this with me last time. He asked question A but gets mad because if you answer the question because he assumes you should have mind read him about his question B and answered that as well. Also, just because he asks a general question to the forum doesn't mean everyone has to drop everything they are doing to answer it. Heck, doesn't mean it will get answered at all.

The one thing about the Georgia DA I am upset about is he decided to charge without the investigation even remotely being done on the case which he is suppose to be waiting for.

LOL and as you brought it up did you see the case the DA presented out in his press briefing?

Oh and in the Candice thread you made this offer

"I have no problem reposting all our posts back and forth from this thread showing how it went as I stated above."

I took you up on the offer and then you left me hanging. Not cool dude.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I feel the same way about you posts.

I brought up plenty of retentive information so your feelings are unjustified.

 

[JEDIYoda]

He did this with me last time. He asked question A but gets mad because if you answer the question because he assumes you should have mind read him about his question B and answered that as well. Also, just because he asks a general question to the forum doesn't mean everyone has to drop everything they are doing to answer it. Heck, doesn't mean it will get answered at all.

The one thing about the Georgia DA I am upset about is he decided to charge without the investigation even remotely being done on the case which he is suppose to be waiting for.

oh Boo Hoo it`s HumblePie coming to the defense of pcgeek11.....Boo Hoo!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

so shooting a cop with a taser isnt considered attempted murder by law?

why would it be? Please explain? A Tazer according to the tazer companies is not a lethal or deadly weapon!

What Georgia law says about when police can use deadly force - KEYT | KCOY

When is a police shooting a crime? When is a police shooting justified? And when is a police shooting neither? Those are the questions prosecutors will address this week after an Atlanta Police officer shot and killed Rayshard Brooks at a Wendy’s drive-through on Friday night. Brooks, 27, was...

keyt.com

Part of the legal decision is based on the nature of the weapon.

The Taser is designed to be less lethal than a firearm, but it can be fatal in some circumstances. Amnesty International said that more than 500 people have died in the US “after being shocked with a Taser either during their arrest or while in jail,” according to a CNN story in 2015. Although Taser, the company, said the tally of deaths directly attributed to Taser is more like 60.

L. Chris Stewart, attorney for Brooks’ family, said the video shows that the officer’s life was not in immediate danger and compared the Taser to other less lethal options.

“It was a Taser, which falls under the exact category of pepper spray and a baton. If he had pepper spray, should he have been shot then?” he said.

It is not a hypothetical question. In 2016, a Bibb County sheriff’s deputy in Georgia shot and killed a 57-year-old man suspected of shoplifting who pepper-sprayed the officer during a confrontation. Investigators ruled that the shooting was justified, according to The Macon Telegraph.

Another attorney for Brooks’ family, Justin Miller, said he did not believe the shooting was justified, and he noted that the surveillance video shows officer Rolfe reach for his gun before Brooks turns around with the Taser.

“So he was already going in that direction, going to the lethal force direction before that Taser was pointed in his direction,” Miller told CNN on Monday. “The Taser didn’t hit him. The Taser goes off. He still decides to shoot him in the back while he’s running away when there are, again, multiple options that he could have chosen that would not have resulted in death.

 

[CZroe]

oh Boo Hoo it`s HumblePie coming to the defense of pcgook11.....Boo Hoo!!

Maybe you don't know, but "g**k" is a derogatory and offensive racist term. The forum won't even let you type it by itself.

“It was a Taser, which falls under the exact category of pepper spray and a baton. If he had pepper spray, should he have been shot then?” he said.

It is not a hypothetical question. In 2016, a Bibb County sheriff’s deputy in Georgia shot and killed a 57-year-old man suspected of shoplifting who pepper-sprayed the officer during a confrontation. Investigators ruled that the shooting was justified, according to The Macon Telegraph.

Doesn't that argue against yourself then?

Still, I'm wondering what the justification was. They probably argued that the officer thought the man was after his gun and the pepper spray attack was a means to gain access.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Maybe you don't know, but "g**k" is a derogatory and offensive racist term. The forum won't even let you type it by itself.


Doesn't that argue against yourself then?

Still, I'm wondering what the justification was. They probably argued that the officer thought the man was after his gun and the pepper spray attack was a means to gain access.

No it doesn`t because it was a typo.....but thx for pointing it out.....I have never called anyone a g**K......
beloved patriot is a derogatory term for certain people of East and Southeast Asian descent. The slur is frequently directed toward people of Filipino, Korean, or Vietnamese descent. It was originally predominantly used by the U.S. military during wartime, especially during the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

 

[pauldun170]

Historical - Brooks got into some trouble in his early 20's and went to jail. He did his time and was on probation. By all accounts and he was reformed and trying to do the right thing and his prior record when he was in early 20's....when most males are dumbasses is not as relevant as you think.
Officer Rolfe was at the 6 tyear mark, where he had enough experience under his belt to be confident. This is around the time when officers choose dark side or light side of the force.
Brosnan was still relatively fresh.

Summary - Interaction between Brooks officers was uneventful and officers were professional. I thought they were doing a good job and were pretty decent with Brooks. Once all parties became aware that Brooks is going to be arrested, officers initiate the arrest and Brooks panics as officers being to grab him.
Brooks panic'd when he started thinking about whats going to occur if he gets arrested. People who panic tend to pull away or stiffen up.
The officer begin to fully restrain him and get him down to the ground. Brooks didn't "violently attack the officers". He did not go on offensive. He was acting in a typical defensive way to avoid 2 officers trying to cuff him. In Georgia, this would probably result in a felony obstruction of a police officer charge.
The sentence for that is 1-5 years and a $300 fine.
I do not see anywhere that it it says "death penalty".

Then the mistake.

Unfortunately, Brosnan fucked up and I think the over reliance on tasers are to blame. His reaching for the taser was the mistake. Instead of controlling the suspect and assisting his partner....he was more concerned about the damn taser. Brooks hands were free because Brosnan stopped trying to control Brooks and reached for his taser. Brooks grabbed the taser because Brosnan unholstered and was trying to aim at him.

Since noobie mc Brosnan was too busy worried about the taser Brooks was able to change position, wiggle free and stand up. He threw a punch when they tred to grab him again and then took off.

I'm think that Brosnan deserves criminal charges. However, I think he is a liability to the department. the department serves the community and Brosnan is going to be a symbol of the worst aspects of policing in that community.

Rolfe on the other hand. Fuck that guy.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Historical - Brooks got into some trouble in his early 20's and went to jail. He did his time and was on probation. By all accounts and he was reformed and trying to do the right thing and his prior record when he was in early 20's....when most males are dumbasses is not as relevant as you think.

Did... uhhh..... did..... you.... uhhhh read anything about Brook's record?

Because you're entirely wrong and full of complete shit.

But hey, beating your kids is definitely no biggie. There definitely isn't something ENTIRELY MENTALLY FUCKED UP in your head if you do that.

Drunk driving (after a previous DWI) WHILE ON PROBATION means you TOOOOOOOOOTALLY LEARNED YOUR FUCKING LESSON, RIGHT?

Jesus fuck it's like talking to a fucking mental patient.

Summary - Interaction between Brooks officers was uneventful and officers were professional. I thought they were doing a good job and were pretty decent with Brooks. Once all parties became aware that Brooks is going to be arrested, officers initiate the arrest and Brooks panics as officers being to grab him.
Brooks panic'd when he started thinking about whats going to occur if he gets arrested. People who panic tend to pull away or stiffen up.
The officer begin to fully restrain him and get him down to the ground. Brooks didn't "violently attack the officers". He did not go on offensive. He was acting in a typical defensive way to avoid 2 officers trying to cuff him. In Georgia, this would probably result in a felony obstruction of a police officer charge.
The sentence for that is 1-5 years and a $300 fine.
I do not see anywhere that it it says "death penalty".

Yeah, now I see why - you're just as fucking crazy as Brooks.

You sincerely have brain damage if you think that "brooks didn't violently attack the officers"

 

[zzyzxroad]

Did... uhhh..... did..... you.... uhhhh read anything about Brook's record?

Because you're entirely wrong and full of complete shit.

But hey, beating your kids is definitely no biggie. There definitely isn't something ENTIRELY MENTALLY FUCKED UP in your head if you do that.



Yeah, now I see why - you're just as fucking crazy as Brooks.

You sincerely have brain damage if you think that "brooks didn't violently attack the officers"

His background is irrelevant when it comes to this particular incident.

The shooting was not justified and it appears the police violated several laws that night.

The DA spelled that out point by point the night before last in a press briefing. Have you watched the DA's press briefing?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

His background is irrelevant when it comes to this particular incident.

Then tell others to stop bringing it up? I agree it's not relevant - but this whole philosophy of trying to paint these folks as "He was just a good fun loving father that didn't do wrong" is fucking horse shit.

The shooting was not justified and it appears the police violated several laws that night.

The DA spelled that out point by point the night before last in a press briefing. Have you watched the DA's press briefing?

Yeah, and they will be found not guilty by a jury for all of it. Congrats on wasting everyone's time and tons of money trying to argue that a taser isn't qualification for retaliating.

I'm done trying to debate with you because you're just hard-headed on your beliefs - which is fine.... Just don't be surprised when the Not Guilty verdicts are rubbed in your face.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Did... uhhh..... did..... you.... uhhhh read anything about Brook's record?

Because you're entirely wrong and full of complete shit.

But hey, beating your kids is definitely no biggie. There definitely isn't something ENTIRELY MENTALLY FUCKED UP in your head if you do that.

Drunk driving (after a previous DWI) WHILE ON PROBATION means you TOOOOOOOOOTALLY LEARNED YOUR FUCKING LESSON, RIGHT?

Jesus fuck it's like talking to a fucking mental patient.



Yeah, now I see why - you're just as fucking crazy as Brooks.

You sincerely have brain damage if you think that "brooks didn't violently attack the officers"

Brooks prior record should not have anything to do with this!
It is people like you who make is seem as if it is OK to kill a Black man, because after all he`s black and he had a prior record!
Which says nothin g in your opinion to the fact he was trying to clean up his act!
If Brooks was white and had a prior record and pulled that shit, he would have been arrested or perhaps even allowed to sleep off his being drunk!
After all somebody could have said -- We are taking your keys go ahead and sleep it off.....
I am 100% sure if Brooks was white this would have a totally different outcome!

 

[Aegeon]

Yeah, and they will be found not guilty by a jury for all of it. Congrats on wasting everyone's time and tons of money trying to argue that a taser isn't qualification for retaliating.

I'm done trying to debate with you because you're just hard-headed on your beliefs - which is fine.... Just don't be surprised when the Not Guilty verdicts are rubbed in your face.

You are taking a preposterous position, although your selective support of criminals is noteworthy. It just is that in this case one of the criminals in particular happened to be a cop.

You simply don't have automatic license to shoot someone with a gun just because they maybe aimed at you but missed with a taser, but are not attempting to close the distance with you or the like. In this specific situation things were still effectively under control with either officer potentially able to shoot him IF he had hit and disabled one of them with a taser and tried to them close the distance with them. At most if concerned they could have simply backed off, especially in this situation.

For good measure since Brooks had apparently fired off all the taser shots, the cop effectively shot an unarmed man.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Then tell others to stop bringing it up? I agree it's not relevant - but this whole philosophy of trying to paint these folks as "He was just a good fun loving father that didn't do wrong" is fucking horse shit.





Yeah, and they will be found not guilty by a jury for all of it. Congrats on wasting everyone's time and tons of money trying to argue that a taser isn't qualification for retaliating.

I'm done trying to debate with you because you're just hard-headed on your beliefs - which is fine.... Just don't be surprised when the Not Guilty verdicts are rubbed in your face.

I'm hard headed for asking you to address the case the DA outlined? I did not indicate what the eventual outcome will be. I wanted your opinion of what he presented.

Done debating because like the taser lethality dialogue you could no longer articulate why you held your position?

oh and why did you abandon the Lincoln Project thread?

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm still trying to catch up from the last few days but I thought I would make a few points here. The reason the cops could not just let him walk home, call an Uber or just give him a summons to appear later is because he had a Ohio driver's license, he had a rental car and he was disoriented and did not know where is was. The Ohio driver's license was brought up on the Don Lemon show the other night when he was interviewing one of the cop's attorneys. It was apparently recorded on one of the body cams. That would explain why the cops had no choice but to arrest him at that point. That, IMO, triggered the change from passive to aggressive behavior and to fight and flee since he was still on probation (see below) and would certainly go back to prison.

Here are a couple of recent articles with interviews from his father in Toledo, Ohio. Brooks lived with him most of 2019 and also worked there. He told his father that he planned to go back to Georgia and bring his family back up to live in Toledo where he could get his job back and start a new life. That would explain the Ohio driver's license.

Uh, no one (other than homerjs earlier in the thread) seriously questions that they had to arrest him. As I said earlier, they always have to make a physical arrest for a DUI because they cannot rely on evidence from the FST or portable breath test to prove DUI in court. They have to take you in to get a valid BAC test, every time. Or else they're just letting you off for the DUI.

The issue is why give chase on foot under that circumstance, and why shoot? Either they were afraid of that taser as a lethal threat, in which case there were more cautious options than chasing him on foot, or they really weren't afraid, in which case there was no possible justification for the shoot. I think it's clear here that they gave chase because they were not afraid of the taser to begin with, or they wouldn't have escalated the situation by giving chase on foot and putting themselves at risk of the taser.

The culpability of the officer here can be understood by pondering the following: had it been a gun in Brooks' hand instead of a taser, would they have chased him on foot, or would they have perhaps doing something different? The answer to that question tells you what degree of threat they actually perceived from Brooks.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm hard headed for asking you to address the case the DA outlined? I did not indicate what the eventual outcome will be. I wanted your opinion of what he presented.

Done debating because like the taser lethality dialogue you could no longer articulate why you held your position?

He will never give you the time of day!! People of his ilk believe that because Brooks had a prior record that entitled him to be killed!
People like him do not care that Brooks was trying to clean up his act!
People like him will make all the excuses in the world for why Books was killed!
Then People like him will try to straddle the fence to say , see I sort of maybe agree tjat brooks shouldn`t have been killed! All the while sing Zipidy doodah.....and celebrating the death of another one of those people! How fucking sick is that>>?? Now that is fucking horse shit!!

 

[CZroe]

Brooks didn't "violently attack the officers". He did not go on offensive. He was acting in a typical defensive way to avoid 2 officers trying to cuff him.

I don't know about that. I recall seeing him throw some pretty mean punches to the officer's face after getting on top. I see "violent" being a pretty good description of that and they might even say he was on the offensive since he was on top and trying to disable the officer BEFORE running. Not "typical" at all.

I am 100% sure if Brooks was white this would have a totally different outcome!

You seem pretty sure about that. I feel the opposite. After all, it has happened before and there was no sign that they had any previous animosity for Brooks before he attacked them.

There is no reason to make this about race.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't know about that. I recall seeing him throw some pretty mean punches to the officer's face after getting on top. I see "violent" being a pretty good description of that and they might even say he was on the offensive since he was on top and trying to disable the officer BEFORE running. Not "typical" at all.

If if that is factually true, disabling someone before running away from them suggests that you are...trying to get away. Any violence used is not the point in and of itself.

Brooks was trying to get away. The officer shot him to prevent that. It is not a permissible use of force.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I don't know about that. I recall seeing him throw some pretty mean punches to the officer's face after getting on top. I see "violent" being a pretty good description of that and they might even say he was on the offensive since he was on top and trying to disable the officer BEFORE running. Not "typical" at all.


You seem pretty sure about that. I feel the opposite. After all, it has happened before and there was no sign that they had any previous animosity for Brooks before he attacked them.

There is no reason to make this about race.

Have you see the car footage? He is clearly trying to get away. Not sure how that is pertinent though since the shots happened after he got away and was running from them.

[]

 

[Lanyap]

Uh, no one (other than homerjs earlier in the thread) seriously questions that they had to arrest him. As I said earlier, they always have to make a physical arrest for a DUI because they cannot rely on evidence from the FST or portable breath test to prove DUI in court. They have to take you in to get a valid BAC test, every time. Or else they're just letting you off for the DUI.

The issue is why give chase on foot under that circumstance, and why shoot? Either they were afraid of that taser as a lethal threat, in which case there were more cautious options than chasing him on foot, or they really weren't afraid, in which case there was no possible justification for the shoot. I think it's clear here that they gave chase because they were not afraid of the taser to begin with, or they wouldn't have escalated the situation by giving chase on foot and putting themselves at risk of the taser.

The culpability of the officer here can be understood by pondering the following: had it been a gun in Brooks' hand instead of a taser, would they have chased him on foot, or would they have perhaps doing something different? The answer to that question tells you what degree of threat they actually perceived from Brooks.

Apparently I misunderstood your statement below that I quoted. It sounds like you were saying don't chase him and let him go home and pick him up later to defuse the situation. I was trying to clarify that they couldn't because he was not anywhere near his home. If they let him go without chasing him then he would be in the wind.

He might surrender himself, maybe, but what I'm really suggesting is that they come to his house and arrest him a few hours later. They had to know that his state of intoxication at the time was a factor in his behavior.

 

[woolfe9998]

Apparently I misunderstood your statement below that I quoted. It sounds like you were saying don't chase him and let him go home and pick him up later to defuse the situation. I was trying to clarify that they couldn't because he was not anywhere near his home. If they let him go without chasing him then he would be in the wind.

So you're saying his wife and kids did not live in Atlanta? I was under the impression he was staying with them?