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

[Lanyap]

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

I believe they are living in Atlanta and he may have been staying with them but not sure where. When asked during the DUI testing he didn't know where he was. Forest park is about 10 miles south of Brooks location at Wendy's on University ave.

APD releases the bodycam footage from Rolfe and Bronsan:
On early Sunday morning, the Atlanta Police Department released bodycam videos from Bronsan and Rolfe. According to Bronsan’s bodycam video, he was first to arrive at the Wendy’s just after 9:40 p.m. Bronsan walked over to a white Toyota Camry that was in the drive-thru line, where Brooks appeared to be sleeping in the driver’s seat. Bronsan woke Brooks and had him move the car to a parking space nearby. After talking with Brooks, Bronsan requested a DUI-certified officer.

Rolfe arrived at about 9:55 p.m. according to bodycam timestamps and began questioning Brooks. Brooks appeared to be confused about where he was, telling Rolfe that he was in Forest Park on Old Dixie Highway. He would later tell Rolfe that he was staying at the Home Lodge Inn, which Brooks thought was nearby. (There is a Home Lodge Inn on Old Dixie Highway in Forest Park.) Brooks said several times he had “one and a half” alcoholic drinks.

What we know so far about the killing of Rayshard Brooks

On the evening of Friday, June 12, 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by an Atlanta Police Department officer in the parking lot of the Wendy's restaurant on University Avenue in Peoplestown.

www.atlantamagazine.com

While Bronsan and Brooks wait for the other officer to arrive, they have a cordial conversation.
“You here for a visit?” Bronsan asked.
“I’m visiting," Brooks said. When Bronsan asked who he was visiting, Brooks said he was visiting his mother’s gravesite.
Minutes later, Officer Rolfe arrives at the scene. Body camera footage captures him asking Brooks a series of questions.

• “Do you know where you are?”
• “I’m in Forest Park, Old Dixie Highway.”
• “So, you think you’re in Forest Park right now?"
• “I’m on old Dixie Highway. Clayton County.”
• "No you’re not."
• “Well, Forest Park, Georgia?”
• “No.”
• “Jonesboro, Georgia”
• "Nope.”

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

www.wsbtv.com

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

People here defending DWI lol. How pathetic.

Only comes from someone with no direct experience.

 

[zzyzxroad]

People here defending DWI lol. How pathetic.

Only comes from someone with no direct experience.

Who defended DWI?

 

[Moonbeam]

People here defending DWI lol. How pathetic.

Only comes from someone with no direct experience.

You say this as if it represented a real truth and not your opinion. The lessons one draws from experience are based on ones experience with drawing lessons from experience. One of the first of these might be noticing how one sees things can be strongly influenced by past conditioning. A whipped dog, for example, might shy at the sight of a whip meant for a horse. Why should I trust your notion of what experience teaches when I can rely on my own which I have to assume is vastly superior to your own since you failed to notice this flaws in your reasoning. You assume you draw correct lessons from what you believe you see, as in seeing is believing, but what I notice is that people actually only see what they already believe, which would explain your level of certainty.

You have no choice but to believe what you think you see. It is the nature of machines. But the conceit with which you present it might need work. What I see is that everybody believes in their own opinion as if it was the one true religion of the millions of those. And not everybody can be right.

Had I to guess at what people are saying contrary to defending DUI, they are expressing the opinion that being found DWI by police should not be a death sentence.

 

[CZroe]

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.

[]

*sigh*

He said it was not violent. I don't see you asking him how that is pertinent. It was pertinent to what he said, as a correction... or would you rather I not chime in when someone says something demonstrably wrong?

Truth matters.

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

In the full 40+ minute bodycam footage he says he's visiting in a rental car and staying in a hotel with his sister. His ID is from Ohio. He seems to think the hotel room is right by the Wendy's but that's doubtful considering that he didn't know where he was and didn't know the hotel's address when the police asked.

I believe they are living in Atlanta and he may have been staying with them but not sure where. When asked during the DUI testing he didn't know where he was. Forest park is about 10 miles south of Brooks location at Wendy's on University ave.

What we know so far about the killing of Rayshard Brooks

On the evening of Friday, June 12, 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by an Atlanta Police Department officer in the parking lot of the Wendy's restaurant on University Avenue in Peoplestown.

www.atlantamagazine.com

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

www.wsbtv.com

Jonesboro is further away and it's pretty hard to mix up anything outside the perimeter with the inside, especially on the south side.

"The perimeter" is I-285 which completely encircles Atlanta. The two north/south interstates converge inside the perimeter ("the connector") and diverge on the other side making it even harder to miss. The world's busiest airport on the south side occupying nearly all the space between the interstates and the perimeter before they converge (...and then some: runways extend OVER the perimeter) makes it almost impenetrable via surface streets. If you were somehow ITP south and thought you were OTP, you'd have to be really out of it.

 

[zzyzxroad]

*sigh*

He said it was not violent. I don't see you asking him how that is pertinent . It was pertinent to what he said, as a correction... or would you rather I not chime in when someone says something demonstrably wrong?

Truth matters.



In the full 40+ minute bodycam footage he says he's visiting in a rental car and staying in a hotel with his sister. His ID is from Ohio. He seems to think the hotel room is right by the Wendy's but that's doubtful considering that he didn't know where he was and didn't know the hotel's address when the police asked.


Jonesboro is further away and it's pretty hard to mix up anything outside the perimeter with the inside, especially on the south side.

"The perimeter" is I-285 which completely encircles Atlanta. The two north/south interstates converge inside the perimeter ("the connector") and diverge on the other side making it even harder to miss. The world's busiest airport on the south side occupying nearly all the space between the interstates and the perimeter before they converge (...and then some: runways extend OVER the perimeter) makes it almost impenetrable via surface streets. If you were somehow ITP south and thought you were OTP, you'd have to be really out of it.

Sigh???

You said he was on the offensive. I wasn't sure and went look and found this new angle of the altercation. It looks to me like he was struggling not to be handcuffed and then run away?

Did you watch that footage? If so what is your though?

The coment about it not being pertinent is in reference to the killing. None of that part of the altercation is relevant when deciding if the cop was justified in shooting him.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sigh???

You said he was on the offensive. I wasn't sure and went look and found this new angle of the altercation. It looks to me like he was struggling not to be handcuffed and then run away?

Did you watch that footage? If so what is your though?

The coment about it not being pertinent is in reference to the killing. None of that part of the altercation is relevant when deciding if the cop was justified in shooting him.

Well you do know Brooks was arrested stealing 6 pack of Pepsi, 8 years ago......how is that not relevant??

 

[CZroe]

Sigh???

You said he was on the offensive. I wasn't sure and went look and found this new angle of the altercation. It looks to me like he was struggling not to be handcuffed and then run away?

Did you watch that footage? If so what is your though?

I said it could be described as "violent" in contrast to his assertion that it could not.

I watched body camera footage, security camera footage, and bystander footage. You can see the second punch to the face right around 1:00:

He was on top with both arms free. They had switched gears from trying to cuff to trying to detain. He was no longer just trying to avoid the cuffs when he threw those blows. It was not the "typical" non-violent resistance where you might stiffen your arms and lean/drop/turn to keep them from drawing them behind you. His resistance was a lot more violent than that and he's delusional to say otherwise. It does not help his argument to make those claims so it's best to address it right away so he doesn't make that mistake when making his case in the future.

The coment about it not being pertinent is in reference to the killing. None of that part of the altercation is relevant when deciding if the cop was justified in shooting him.

...and I never said it was. Obviously, he thought it was important enough for whatever point he was trying to make so it was important enough for me to set that straight. If you disagree then why aren't you telling him that it doesn't matter? Don't be so blatantly selective when calling that out. If anything I'm only helping him strengthen his argument by countering these irrelevant points early so we don't keep barking up the wrong tree.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I said it could be described as "violent" in contrast to his assertion that it could not.

I watched body camera footage, security camera footage, and bystander footage. You can see the second punch to the face right around 1:00:

He was on top with both arms free. They had switched gears from trying to cuff to trying to detain. He was no longer just trying to avoid the cuffs when he threw those blows. It was not the "typical" non-violent resistance where you might stiffen your arms and lean/drop/turn to keep them from drawing them behind you. His resistance was a lot more violent than that and he's delusional to say otherwise. It does not help his argument to make those claims so it's best to address it right away so he doesn't make that mistake when making his case in the future.


...and I never said it was. Obviously, he thought it was important enough for whatever point he was trying to make so it was important enough for me to set that straight. If you disagree then why aren't you telling him that it doesn't matter? Don't be so blatantly selective when calling that out. If anything I'm only helping him strengthen his argument by countering these irrelevant points early so we don't keep barking up the wrong tree.

The footage I posted from the car is the best view of the handcuff fight I have seen and though I would toss it out. You mentioned you thought he was on the offensive. I wanted to make sure you saw that footage. The other views of that fight are all horrible.

Oh and anyone stating that altercation wasn't violent is wrong.

So we clear, when you see the footage I posted, you see brooks going on the offensive? Not fighting his way to his feet and then running away?

I see him violently man handling those guys to get loose but as soon as he was up he ran.

 

[JEDIYoda]

aren`t we all amazing?? All the diverse view points!! Some blind but still diverse!

 

[KMFJD]

Another execution by the cops, this time a security guard in LA

https://twitter.com/x/status/1274118743661047808

'He Ran Because He Was Scared': LASD Deputies Shoot, Kill Auto Body Shop Security Guard In Gardena

This is the second fatal shooting involving a deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in two days.

losangeles.cbslocal.com

 

[pauldun170]

I said it could be described as "violent" in contrast to his assertion that it could not.

Once I saw the "show ignored content" I figured the idiot brigade stepped in made pointless noise so I moved on. The people who are on that list have a long track record of wasting everyone time and contributing nothing to the 99% of threads. I encourage everyone to use the ignore feature.

If you are referring to my post, I did not say it wasn't violent. I said I didn't agree that "Brooks violently attacked the officers" and that his actions were defensive in nature. The focus is not on the word "violence". The focus is on the word "attack"
There is a difference. Attack in common language mean Brooks was on the offensive. I did not see that in the video.
The officers lawyer describe the interaction as "Brooks attacked the officers". I simply do not agree with the language used.

 

[CZroe]

The officers lawyer describe the interaction as "Brooks attacked the officers". I simply do not agree with the language used.

You can't be serious.

Not only did he indisputably attack them, he attacked them in a way that some could reasonably describe as "violent." Either way, how anyone could say that they disagree with the statement "Brooks attacked the officers" blows my mind.

 

[pauldun170]

You can't be serious.

Not only did he indisputably attack them, he attacked them in a way that some could reasonably describe as "violent." Either way, how anyone could say that they disagree with the statement "Brooks attacked the officers" blows my mind.

Not unexpected. I respect your view on it and I don't think getting lost in the technicalities is going to change either of our minds on it.
In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

Assuming you are in the right, should Brosnan have relinquished control of Brooks to reach for his taser at close quarters and should Rolfe had shot him in the back in response for firing a taser at him?

 

[CZroe]

Not unexpected. I respect your view on it and I don't think getting lost in the technicalities is going to change either of our minds on it.
In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

Assuming you are in the right, should Brosnan have relinquished control of Brooks to reach for his taser at close quarters and should Rolfe had shot him in the back in response for firing a taser at him?

As I've said before, they should not have shot him but I say that with the benefit of hindsight and time to consider the details he may not have been situationally aware of in that moment. He may be judged on a different standard, like how reasonable was it for him to fear for his life in that moment after being fired at and before realizing that Brooks had nothing left.

 

[pauldun170]

As I've said before, they should not have shot him but I say that with the benefit of hindsight and time to consider the details he may not have been situationally aware of in that moment. He may be judged on a different standard, like how reasonable was it for him to fear for his life in that moment after being fired at and before realizing that Brooks had nothing left.

One things for sure, Jury selection is going to be pretty critical for Rolfe's case.
I do think Brosnan is going have it easier. He'll probably have a job lined up pretty quickly if gets fired.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Apparently the whole "kicking" thing was complete bullshit - hence why the only thing used was a specifically used still-frame image (and not an actual video) of when the officer was hopping over the guy to secure him immediately after the shooting.

Yeah, every little bit of these charges are going to get thrown out because the DA is such an incompetent moron.

Murder charges when just a week earlier he was saying that a taser is a deadly weapon.
Misconstruing and taking still-frame images to try and draw a false narrative.

This has not-guilty written all over it. Good job morons. You had a chance at something like manslaughter, now you're getting nothing.

 

[HomerJS]

People here defending DWI lol. How pathetic.

Only comes from someone with no direct experience.

Do you lie naturality or use Trump as a role model?

 

[zzyzxroad]

Apparently the whole "kicking" thing was complete bullshit - hence why the only thing used was a specifically used still-frame image (and not an actual video) of when the officer was hopping over the guy to secure him immediately after the shooting.

Yeah, every little bit of these charges are going to get thrown out because the DA is such an incompetent moron.

Murder charges when just a week earlier he was saying that a taser is a deadly weapon.
Misconstruing and taking still-frame images to try and draw a false narrative.

This has not-guilty written all over it. Good job morons. You had a chance at something like manslaughter, now you're getting nothing.

Are you fresh off a fox news be bender? Also please tell us again how tasers are deadly weapons?

 

[HomerJS]

This is what Georgia law states. Sounds like cops violated that law. It doesn't matter they were pissed Brooks fought being arrested.

What Georgia law says


Georgia law allows a person to use deadly force “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.”

Brooks did not point a deadly weapon at cops. Add to it the fact taser already been discharged so it can't harm anyone else. Taseres are not defined as lethal weapons.

What Georgia law says about when police can use deadly force - Channel3000.com

Bodycam video released by the Atlanta Police Department show the moments leading up to the fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks.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...

www.channel3000.com

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This is what Georgia law states. Sounds like cops violated that law. It doesn't matter they were pissed Brooks fought being arrested.


Brooks did not point a deadly weapon at cops. Add to it the fact taser already been discharged so it can't harm anyone else. Taseres are not defined as lethal weapons.

What Georgia law says about when police can use deadly force - Channel3000.com

Bodycam video released by the Atlanta Police Department show the moments leading up to the fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks.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...

www.channel3000.com

Are you fresh off a fox news be bender? Also please tell us again how tasers are deadly weapons?

The FUCKING DA that is literally charging the cop with murder SPECIFICALLY said it's a deadly weapon.

DEEEEEEEEEERP. Do not pass go. Do not collect a guilty murder charge.

 

[Aegeon]

The FUCKING DA that is literally charging the cop with murder SPECIFICALLY said it's a deadly weapon.

DEEEEEEEEEERP. Do not pass go. Do not collect a guilty murder charge.

We definitively refuted this already. The DA mispeaking once does not magically change the law. There is simply no legal question whatsoever that in the specific context in question a taser is not considered a deadly weapon. You are simply wasting our time at this point.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

We definitively refuted this already. The DA mispeaking once does not magically change the law. There is simply no legal question whatsoever that in the specific context in question a taser is not considered a deadly weapon. You are simply wasting our time at this point.

Do you know Georgia law?

Do you know any state laws on this? There is no universal law of what a deadly weapon is. You're clearly not a lawyer because you would understand how asinine your statement was.

You didn't refute shit.

 

[Aegeon]

Do you know Georgia law?

You are clearly have provided zero support for you claim, which both ignores how the laws actually apply and basic common sense. (We have already discussed the relevant detail in this thread.)

Apparently you are actually not really concerned with the officers being charged like this since you are sticking with such a basic silly argument, rather than a more serious one which might be relevant to the facts of this case.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You are clearly have provided zero support for you claim, which both ignores how the laws actually apply and basic common sense. (We have already discussed the relevant detail in this thread.)

Apparently you are actually not really concerned with the officers being charged like this since you are sticking with such a basic silly argument, rather than a more serious one which might be relevant to the facts of this case.

lol there is simply no better source for Georgia law then the Georgia DA himself.

You're just spewing out bias' articles with no real value for facts and dismissing things based on your own bias'.

If you're so confident that a taser is not defined as a deadly weapon in Georgia, then go cite the exact law.