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

[CZroe]

It's more than that. A taser is listed in Georgia law as a deadly weapon. It may not be listed that way everywhere, but it is in Georgia. Doesn't matter how the implementation makes it deadly only that by law it is counted as such. It is not considered an improvised deadly weapon either by Georgia law. There is also the fact that Brooks already tazed the first officer and he wasn't at full capacity anymore because of it. If he got a good taze off on the second officer, he could have easily taken their firearms and done far worse. He had already demonstrated he was willing to commit violent acts, and the police knew his record before going in since they ran his plates. Meaning they knew he had done violent acts before. Still the initially treated him well which is why they didn't do anything forceful at first. Which is why Brooks was able to surprise them when they were putting on the cuffs because they thought he was cooperating fully with them. He then punched them, stole a tazer, tazed one officer, and was running while trying to shoot the tazer behind him at the other officer. Which by video looks like it hit but didn't go off on the second officer. Georgia law also allows police to use deadly force if the perpetrator has already used felony force and if fleeing the police reasonably believe the person to use it again immediately. The DA has no case here at all. Not by how the laws in Georgia are currently. He was talking out his ass for politics and was doing so before any of the investigation was done. I don't any charges sticking on these cops despite anything the DA says based on current law in Georgia. The cops have two legal reasons to use deadly force and Rayshard met both of those reasons. He use felony force on a police officer, and with his past it could be reasonably assumed he would use it again in his escape, and he also stole a deadly weapon under Georgia law and has used it not once, but twice on officers.

While he was shot in the back it was as he was retracting his arm from shooting the tazer backwards. There is a lag delay in that situation and no jury or judge in this country would find guilt on those officers for this situation.

Brooks did not shoot twice. Brooks stole a taser and the officer chasing him shot Brooks with his taser just before they ran off together. Clearly, the officer's taser was ineffective. Brooks then returned fire with the stolen taser. The officer chasing him dropped his taser that was already fired and ineffective anyway and switched to his gun in a very smooth and practiced manner, returning fire with real bullets that ultimately proved fatal.

They practice this because tasers are always a stop-gap to the use of a more deadly weapon.

 

[HumblePie]

Brooks did not shoot twice. Brooks stole a taser and the officer chasing him shot Brooks with his taser just before they ran off together. Clearly, the officer's taser was ineffective. Brooks then returned fire with the stolen taser. The officer chasing him dropped his taser that was already fired and ineffective anyway and switched to his gun in a very smooth and practiced manner, returning fire with real bullets that ultimately proved fatal.

They practice this because tasers are always a stop-gap to the use of a more deadly weapon.

According to the investigation, the taser was fired twice. Once when the taser was first taken, and a second time when he was running. Devin Brosnan actually was tazed and suffered a concussion from falling on the pavement from it.

Atlanta cop Devin Brosnan suffered concussion during Rayshard Brooks altercation: lawyer

Atlanta police officer Devin Brosnan suffered a concussion and other injuries during the altercation that led to the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, the cop’s attorney said in a televised interv…

nypost.com

Rayshard fired a second time at Officer Garrett Rolfe as he was running away to which prompted Officer Rolfe to shoot at Rayshard. The prosecution's case is going to be based off the fact that the tasers can only be fired twice without having to be reset, although it is easy to reset them, and that Rolfe should have realized that after the second shot Brooks couldn't fire again once he deem he didn't go down from being hit. To note, both officers were hit with the taser. It only got Officer Brosnan and didn't go off correctly on Officer Rolfe. Still what I said earlier, is what a lot of lawyers looking on this case have said. Georgia law outlines what Rolfe did in this situation was legal under the law as it stands. Brooks was using a deadly weapon and just used felony force several times on the officers in his attempt to escape police which the officers knew before hand from running his plates after arriving at the scene. He has a history of violence and escaping from the police. Any officer in that situation would reasonably believe that Brooks would commit even further acts of violence in his attempt to escape. Laws in most states allow for cops to shoot in that situation if the believe the person fleeing is likely to cause grave bodily harm or death to others in their flight.

 

[CZroe]

According to the investigation, the taser was fired twice. Once when the taser was first taken, and a second time when he was running. Devin Brosnan actually was tazed suffered a concussion from falling on the pavement from it.

Atlanta cop Devin Brosnan suffered concussion during Rayshard Brooks altercation: lawyer

Atlanta police officer Devin Brosnan suffered a concussion and other injuries during the altercation that led to the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, the cop’s attorney said in a televised interv…

nypost.com

Rayshard fired a second time at Officer Garrett Rolfe as he was running away to which prompted Officer Rolfe to shoot at Rayshard. The prosecution's case is going to be based off the fact that the tasers can only be fired twice without having to be reset, although it is easy to reset them, and that Rolfe should have realized that after the second shot Brooks couldn't fire again once he deem he didn't go down from being hit. To note, both officers were hit with the taser. It only got Officer Brosnan and didn't go off correctly on Officer Rolfe. Still what I said earlier, is what a lot of lawyers looking on this case have said. Georgia law outlines what Rolfe did in this situation was legal under the law as it stands. Brooks was using a deadly weapon and just used felony force several times on the officers in his attempt to escape police which the officers knew before hand from running his plates after arriving at the scene. He has a history of violence and escaping from the police. Any officer in that situation would reasonably believe that Brooks would commit even further acts of violence in his attempt to escape. Laws in most states allow for cops to shoot in that situation if the believe the person fleeing is likely to cause grave bodily harm or death to others in their flight.

Thanks, but there's one more thing that I meant to point out:
They didn't get his rap sheet by running his plates since it was a rental car.

 

[HumblePie]

Thanks, but there's one more thing that I meant to point out:
They didn't get his rap sheet by running his plates since it was a rental car.

They would have gotten it from running his ID from it and/or from his ID before the sobriety test.

 

[Aegeon]

Brooks was using a deadly weapon and just used felony force several times on the officers in his attempt to escape police which the officers knew before hand from running his plates after arriving at the scene. He has a history of violence and escaping from the police. Any officer in that situation would reasonably believe that Brooks would commit even further acts of violence in his attempt to escape. Laws in most states allow for cops to shoot in that situation if the believe the person fleeing is likely to cause grave bodily harm or death to others in their flight.

This is a preposterous claim which is wildly contrary to the facts or how the laws are supposed to work anywhere in the US.

We already addressed the "deadly weapon" claim regarding the taser. With regards to the rest, since the police had his id, they didn't really need to necessarily pursue him in the first place. (This gave them another method to track him down and for instance have 4+ cops in place to put him under arrest.)

More to the point, there it was overwhelmingly clear given the specific situation that Brooks was actually very unlikely to commit further violence at that point (at least as far as the general public is concerned) in the specific scenario in question since the evidence was he was just trying to get away. (And had actually been willing to talk to the cops at least basically calmly for an extended period of time before they sought to cuff him.) The only plausible scenario would be he might have engaged in further violent act when another officer tried to arrest him later, but at most having one shot left in a taser clearly does not justifying firing in the specific situation under the law. If the law was as broad as you claim, (especially since the difference between and unarmed is not much with a knife actually being much more creditably dangerous) cops would be able to shoot fleeing suspects in the back with practical impunity as long as they could establish their identity and that they had a bit of a criminal record first.

I am frankly finding the claims of some posters in this thread very troubling at this point and I am frankly wondering what is motivating some of this.

 

[HumblePie]

This is a preposterous claim which is wildly contrary to the facts or how the laws are supposed to work anywhere in the US.

We already addressed the "deadly weapon" claim regarding the taser. With regards to the rest, since the police had his id, they didn't really need to necessarily pursue him in the first place. (This gave them another method to track him down and for instance have 4+ cops in place to put him under arrest.)

More to the point, there it was overwhelmingly clear given the specific situation that Brooks was actually very unlikely to commit further violence at that point (at least as far as the general public is concerned) in the specific scenario in question since the evidence was he was just trying to get away. (And had actually been willing to talk to the cops at least basically calmly for an extended period of time before they sought to cuff him.) The only plausible scenario would be he might have engaged in further violent act when another officer tried to arrest him later, but at most having one shot left in a taser clearly does not justifying firing in the specific situation under the law. If the law was as broad as you claim, (especially since the difference between and unarmed is not much with a knife actually being much more creditably dangerous) cops would be able to shoot fleeing suspects in the back with practical impunity as long as they could establish their identity and that they had a bit of a criminal record first.

I am frankly finding the claims of some posters in this thread very troubling at this point and I am frankly wondering what is motivating some of this.

If you have a problem with how a previous police officer and current prosecutor I linked to stated about the laws of Georgia in this case and how they are applied to this scenario then take it up with them.

I can post more lawyers talking about it as well. Figured I'd use Nate as he is a democrat black lawyer who is the one making those statements as well. Since this forum is overwhelmingly far left these days, like many other tech forums, if I don't use a source that is also from the left, everyone here just attacks the source and not the message. Half will still call him an uncle tom or out of touch rich black man as I had saw others do to other sources I posted like that. But here is David Freiheit and Robert Barnes discussing it as well on you tube.

They cite other lawyer channels in that video as well all noting what they and Nate noted as well. There are also officers all over the country stating the same thing with the recently released public evidence. Like this Georgia Sheriff.

Quite frankly you don't know what you are talking about here.

 

[Aegeon]

But here is David Freiheit and Robert Barnes discussing it as well on you tube.

Obviously no-one in there right mind is going to listen to a close to 2 hour conversation in the hope of trying to find the relevant portion of the discussion just so we can respond to you.

Quite frankly you don't know what you are talking about here.

This is troubling evidence against the sheriff and hopefully he is more careful with what he actually teaches officers, and already debunked in this thread, but he is also clearly not actually making the same argument you are now making about merely fleeing (and a weak argument about him possibly hurting someone in the future) being justification for shooting.

The fact of the matter though is as noted the threat of the taser was not sufficient at the time to justify shooting as previously covered in the this thread including by me given even disabling one officer would not had immediately put the suspect in position to immediately grab a weapon while the other officer would have been clearly in position to shoot him first as he approached the other officer. The actual law is clear here and regardless of what posters here claim or one or two random people out there, the main questions are what specifically the officer is going to be convicted of and if the other officer will end up being convicted of a charge. (I probably still need to do more research and review the available video more to come to a personal opinion on that point.)

 

[aigomorla]

Did you see the acting interm chief's speech?

He totally did not write that speech.
It sounds like the mayor toss'd him a script and said read it and hopefully we can fix some of my mess.

Anyhow this is the last chief and her reaction to Floyd.

She seemed pretty liberal, so she knew the fallout from this would be pretty sever to have resigned right after the shooting.
Which makes me believe she must of clashed with the major before this happened, and as this happened, she went
"OH HELLZ NO, im out of here.".

 

[woolfe9998]

OK I'll do a little legal analysis here, after looking at the Georgia statutes. Georgia has just one murder statute, no separate degrees. It has two manslaughter statutes: involuntary and voluntary.

The murder statute covers both the standard form of murder (i.e. requires "malice") and felony murder, which requires that someone die in the course of a different felony.

I honestly don't understand how "assault with a deadly weapon" here can be an underlying felony for felony murder. Because any intentional killing involves an assault. I thought the assault merged with the homicide itself, i.e. that it isn't a separate felony. If it was, virtually any killing could be felony murder.

Perhaps that is allowed under Georgia law. You'd have to look at case law interpreting the statute. But either way, I think voluntary manslaughter is the crime which fits these facts:

A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person. However, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder (O.C.G.A. 16-5-2).

This is a "heat of the moment" killing and seems to fall squarely within this statute. Penalty is 1-20 years at the judge's discretion.

I predict this will be the ultimate result, regardless of where the current charges stand.

 

[Maxima1]

are you really that dense......

all he was doing is making a statement.....

I could have phrased it better. It’s implying the possibility that trying resisting could work just as well or better. Which comes across as puerile, so if not serious, just a snarky statement.

as it seems that not resisting is not working very well for Black people.....

You being serious? This is incredibly evident. Unarmed deaths are just a fraction of total killings. And even when unarmed, a significant portion wasn’t because of a lack of trying. How many black professionals get killed by cops? Why do you think someone of Floyd’s age has similar risk to a white male 20-something? Oh, and for that matter, why is this a black male thing?

Now you are playing the well it could happen to anybody card. That is ignorant! The fact s are it is NOT happening to anybody! But it is happening to Black people.......

You’re no different than Trumpers if you actually believe it only happens to black people. You just eat up the rhetoric.

The page you linked to does not say any of the sort that you are claiming..... also it is a page that depicts Police shootings in general.

Go play with the filters. You can confirm what I said in that link.

You sound like some white guy trying to prove that there isn`t a problem, when you know there is a problem!

You see what you are trying to do is lump all Police shootings! Of course if you are white a robbing a 7/11 and you get shot then well that is the it goes!

You can argue there is a problem, but there is no way it’s only a black thing. Do you seriously think reforms will only lower black deaths?

Lol It’s clear you aren’t even reading. I did not lump all police shootings.

 

[zzyzxroad]

OK I'll do a little legal analysis here, after looking at the Georgia statutes. Georgia has just one murder statute, no separate degrees. It has two manslaughter statutes: involuntary and voluntary.

The murder statute covers both the standard form of murder (i.e. requires "malice") and felony murder, which requires that someone die in the course of a different felony.

I honestly don't understand how "assault with a deadly weapon" here can be an underlying felony for felony murder. Because any intentional killing involves an assault. I thought the assault merged with the homicide itself, i.e. that it isn't a separate felony. If it was, virtually any killing could be felony murder.

Perhaps that is allowed under Georgia law. You'd have to look at case law interpreting the statute. But either way, I think voluntary manslaughter is the crime which fits these facts:



This is a "heat of the moment" killing and seems to fall squarely within this statute. Penalty is 1-20 years at the judge's discretion.

I predict this will be the ultimate result, regardless of where the current charges stand.

Good info thanks. Do you think the the DA is tossing a bunch of charges out assuming the defendant will plea?

 

[zzyzxroad]

They would have gotten it from running his ID from it and/or from his ID before the sobriety test.

It is unclear if Rolfe ran his information. The other officer did but Rolfe was on scene to administer a DWI field test. We will have to wait until more information is out before assuming that.

Do you think the judge will dismiss the case on lack of evidence?

 

[woolfe9998]

Good info thanks. Do you think the the DA is tossing a bunch of charges out assuming the defendant will plea?

That or to make a political statement. At a minimum, if the matter goes to trial, I think voluntary manslaughter will be added as a lesser included offense.

To my point earlier about felony murder:

Inherently Dangerous Crimes

Inherently dangerous crimes may vary by state, but typically include burglary, robbery, rape, arson and kidnapping. However, under the merger doctrine, if the elements of the underlying felony are a part of the elements of murder, the felony murder rule cannot be applied. For example, a defendant who participated in an assault in which someone was killed could not be charged with felony murder because the elements of assault are also incorporated in the elements of a murder. Thus, the assault “merges” into the murder and is not a distinct crime that can constitute the underlying felony.

Felony Murder

Information about the felony murder rule, what constitutes an inherently dangerous crime, and common punishments and defenses.

www.justia.com

.

AFAIK that is generally the law. If Georgia is an exception, fine, but I'd like to see why.

 

[aigomorla]

I am pretty sure it will get toss'd out at the prelim hearing if he does not do a plea.
If any of the cops get convicted, i am also pretty sure it will destroy atlanta pd, and possibly every other county next to them in helping them out.

But again, it will result in a straight up mistrail as you will not get all jury members saying it was unjustified, just looking at how many people now are mixed saying it was both.

This isn't like Flyod case again, where its straight up the cop was at fault.

You have a straight line drawn on this one, and to get convicted of any felony, you need all members of the jury to be standing on one side, which just wont happen.

 

[HomerJS]

It's more than that. A taser is listed in Georgia law as a deadly weapon. It may not be listed that way everywhere, but it is in Georgia. Doesn't matter how the implementation makes it deadly only that by law it is counted as such. It is not considered an improvised deadly weapon either by Georgia law. There is also the fact that Brooks already tazed the first officer and he wasn't at full capacity anymore because of it. If he got a good taze off on the second officer, he could have easily taken their firearms and done far worse. He had already demonstrated he was willing to commit violent acts, and the police knew his record before going in since they ran his plates. Meaning they knew he had done violent acts before. Still the initially treated him well which is why they didn't do anything forceful at first. Which is why Brooks was able to surprise them when they were putting on the cuffs because they thought he was cooperating fully with them. He then punched them, stole a tazer, tazed one officer, and was running while trying to shoot the tazer behind him at the other officer. Which by video looks like it hit but didn't go off on the second officer. Georgia law also allows police to use deadly force if the perpetrator has already used felony force and if fleeing the police reasonably believe the person to use it again immediately. The DA has no case here at all. Not by how the laws in Georgia are currently. He was talking out his ass for politics and was doing so before any of the investigation was done. I don't any charges sticking on these cops despite anything the DA says based on current law in Georgia. The cops have two legal reasons to use deadly force and Rayshard met both of those reasons. He use felony force on a police officer, and with his past it could be reasonably assumed he would use it again in his escape, and he also stole a deadly weapon under Georgia law and has used it not once, but twice on officers.

While he was shot in the back it was as he was retracting his arm from shooting the tazer backwards. There is a lag delay in that situation and no jury or judge in this country would find guilt on those officers for this situation.

Georgia law can't call the sun the moon, even it it is written in law.

If tasers were deadly weapons they wouldn't need them. Common sense.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If tasers were deadly weapons they wouldn't need them. Common sense.

.... Wut? That statement makes zero sense.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Laws in most states allow for cops to shoot in that situation if the believe the person fleeing is likely to cause grave bodily harm or death to others in their flight.

Which was not the case here.

 

[Maxima1]

And if course it was white person. That's the running theme through all this.

What a twist. The happily married man that's abusive to his wife and kids appears to have a girlfriend.

Natalie White: Rayshard Brooks mentioned the name to police. It just came up again in a warrant

Neither the fire department nor the Brooks family attorney has confirmed whether it's the same person.

www.11alive.com

 

[aigomorla]

Which was not the case here.

Thats not how 100% of the public feels.
Which is why i said it will be a mistrial.

To some him just attempting to shoot the Cop with a taser does indeed constitute dangerous person.
To others it may not, and just represent a flight and fight reaction.

You can not speak for 100% of the audience.
Id say at best you probably represent 70-80%, but you NEED 100% for him to get convicted, which just wont happen.

 

[woolfe9998]

Thats not how 100% of the public feels.
Which is why i said it will be a mistrial.

To some him just attempting to shoot the Cop with a taser does indeed constitute dangerous person.
To others it may not, and just represent a flight and fight reaction.

You can not speak for 100% of the audience.
Id say at best you probably represent 70-80%, but you NEED 100% for him to get convicted, which just wont happen.

That logic would seem to apply to lots of cases. Seems odd to expect that you'd get 12/12 people to agree on anything. Yet the vast majority of criminal trials do not end in a mistrial. The reason being that those in the majority usually end up convincing those in the minority to go along, if for no other reason, to end deliberations so everyone can go home.

 

[zzyzxroad]

That logic would seem to apply to lots of cases. Seems odd to expect that you'd get 12/12 people to agree on anything. Yet the vast majority of criminal trials do not end in a mistrial. The reason being that those in the majority usually end up convincing those in the minority to go along, if for no other reason, to end deliberations so everyone can go home.

I'd also add there are a number of charges on the table. Not so sure he is going to walk away from this.

bond hearing is tomorrow I believe. Might be some insight on how this will play ot based on the judges ruling. I assume the judge have seen the basic evidence from the DA going into that?

 

[ondma]

That logic would seem to apply to lots of cases. Seems odd to expect that you'd get 12/12 people to agree on anything. Yet the vast majority of criminal trials do not end in a mistrial. The reason being that those in the majority usually end up convincing those in the minority to go along, if for no other reason, to end deliberations so everyone can go home.

Which really makes me question the jury system.

 

[woolfe9998]

Which really makes me question the jury system.

Which you would replace with what?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Which you would replace with what?

An all-powerful judge that definitely doesn't have bias'. He will be fair and impartial and NEVER EVER EVER exhibit any humanistic-traits.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd also add there are a number of charges on the table. Not so sure he is going to walk away from this.

Bond herring is tomorrow I believe. Might be some insight on how this will play ot based on the judges ruling. I assume the judge have seen the basic evidence from the DA going into that?

He's less likely to walk away if the jury is ultimately presented with voluntary manslaughter as an option. That would be the smart play here.