Atlanta

mightymoose

mightymoose

Moderator
I have recently found myself at odds with colleagues over the current issue in Atlanta and have to say the experience is very disconcerting.
The typical law enforcement response is to rally around their own, and the vast majority of those I know in the profession are in support of the shooting that took place and the officer"s walkout response to criminal charges.
For the life of me, I can not see how anyone can review the information that is available (complete or not) and feel that officer reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury, and that the shooting of a man in his back as he ran away is justifiable. It truly makes me fear for the future of law enforcement that more police are not outraged and don't easily recognize excessive force. Instead they try to justify it as a matter of "officer safety".
With all the training police receive regarding use of force this incident should be easily flagged as at least being questionable- but no. Emotions are high and hardly anyone I know will speak up against what appears to be obvious unreasonable and excessive force. It is strong support for the officer all around. Outnumbered as I am, it makes me wonder if it is me that is missing something, but all my training and experience and education leads me to the opposite conclusion.
I don't think the officer intended to kill the man, but was caught up in the moment and reacted without thinking- and he likely only shot because he already had his gun in his hand. In flight the entire time, despite the taser being fired and widely missing, there is just no way to say the officer reasonably feared imminent death or injury from a man who was running away as fast as he could.
Good people with good intentions can make bad decisions that come with bad consequences. Regardless of the outcome of the primary charge, it seems they have him easily on the assault of the passengers in the vehicle caught in the line of fire and the lesser offenses. Time will tell what a jury will do, but I suspect he does some time. This didn't make him a political victim. It makes him responsible for his actions.
As for the officers refusing to work I think their decision is shameful. They violate public trust and dishonor their oaths to serve those communities. When times are tough they still need to get the job done. They are being selfish and acting as if they deserve special treatment, that they can't possibly do wrong because they are police. Their job is hard so they should be given special considerations. This is an attitude that must be extinguished.
Police are subject to the same judicial system as those who they arrest. They need to let the matter run its course and respect the outcome even if they disagree- just as countless others do every day.
 
mightymoose said:
For the life of me, I can not see how anyone can review the information that is available (complete or not) and feel that officer reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury, and that the shooting of a man in his back as he ran away is justifiable.
Click to expand...

Moose, have you ever been shot with a taser. If not try it some time and I think you will see why he shot him. It is certainly enough provocation to meet the requirement under the Felony Murder charge the officer has been charged with.

My wife and I were talking about this last night. If that taser was taken away from the other officer, especially out of his holster, there is no way that the officer that shot him would know if it was a taser or a handgun.
 
mightymoose said:
For the life of me, I can not see how anyone can review the information that is available (complete or not) and feel that officer reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury, and that the shooting of a man in his back as he ran away is justifiable.
Click to expand...

I don't know MM, there's a point in the chase where they are about 15' apart (approximately the length of the red car). There's a two second interval where Brooks has the Taser pointing backwards toward Rolfe even though Brooks is running away.

I haven't seen anything online about exactly when the shots were fired but if they were fired during that two second interval I could see a self defense issue. If they were fired after
Brooks brought the Taser in front of himself, maybe not.

I wonder what happened to Rolfe's body cam during that part of the chase.

01.JPG 02.JPG 03.JPG 04.JPG 05.JPG 06.JPG 07.JPG 08.JPG
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
Moose, have you ever been shot with a taser. If not try it some time and I think you will see why he shot him. It is certainly enough provocation to meet the requirement under the Felony Murder charge the officer has been charged with.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The man was running away, back turned, when the officer shot him in the back. In that circumstance there is no imminent harm to the cop and the shooting therefore unjustified. I agree with Moose that today too often officers will rally around any cop charged or accused of wrongdoing in a circle the wagons mentality rather than calling out the cops that indeed screw up. That's unfortunate because lives and health of the public are at stake, but not wholly unexpected. All institutions tend to react defensively when attacked from outside, even when the attacks are justified. That doesn't make it right.
 
mightymoose said:
For the life of me, I can not see how anyone can review the information that is available (complete or not) and feel that officer reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury, and that the shooting of a man in his back as he ran away is justifiable. It truly makes me fear for the future of law enforcement that more police are not outraged and don't easily recognize excessive force. Instead they try to justify it as a matter of "officer safety".
Click to expand...


The best way to resolve any misgivings or uneasiness that the latest police shooting might engender is to recite the following: Every criminal defendant is INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.

The officer's actions aren't fully known to the public.

All the public has been fed is a party line from those who wish to unravel all this great nation has come to mean and is.

Just like folks all over the USA, lawyers in my county gather each morning at a local eatery to discuss various events and happenings.

The considered consensus among the group of about 30 lawyers is that the officers were overcharged and charged without benefit of a grand jury proceeding.

In Texas we call that arrest on complaint and warrant.

You know the standard required for such a warrant, and I know you know the standard required to prove to a jury that the accused did the deed.

USUALLY when C & W is deployed in an effort to effect a quick arrest, the trial results differ from the jury's verdict.

I believe in the jury system and my fellow citizens sitting as jurors, especially in criminal matters.

The outcome is unknown, and what we have seen and been told is NOT evidence.

One of the greatest lawyers I've ever known taught me many tings, two of them I adhere to rigidly.

One, don't try to judge the case, just try the case.

Two, pick the best jurors you can from the jury pool, and trust them to administer justice.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
Moose, have you ever been shot with a taser. If not try it some time and I think you will see why he shot him.
Click to expand...

Yes I have. I volunteered at training, and I recall saying I would take the taser over pepper spray any day because the effects off pepper spray last for hours and the taser is over in seconds.
As an officer on the street I don't fear a taser much. The darts would not penetrate my vest and it would have to be a lucky hit getting an arm and a leg to be effective. Possible, but not likely. Both darts have to connect to be effective, and if they are too close together they won't incapacitate. I think understanding a taser helps to not fear one. Without all the equipment I typically wear it would be a different story. Then it becomes a matter of keeping your distance.

PayrollHRGuy said:
If that taser was taken away from the other officer, especially out of his holster, there is no way that the officer that shot him would know if it was a taser or a handgun.
Click to expand...

The taser was taken from officer Brosnan, out of his hand after he attempted to use it on Brooks. They struggled over the taser with both officers shouting to let go of the taser. As Brooks runs away you can clearly see the flashlight on the front of the taser, the same as the one Rolfe has in his own hand. It would be very difficult to mistake that for a handgun, especially having just struggled over the taser.
I think it will be a hard sell to convince a jury Rolfe believed it was anything other than a taser, especially if Brosnan didn't say anything to give reason to believe it was anything other than that.
Time will tell.
 
adjusterjack said:
There's a two second interval where Brooks has the Taser pointing backwards toward Rolfe even though Brooks is running away.
Click to expand...

I've looked at this closely. You can actually see Rolfe transition from taser to handgun BEFORE Brooks turns and fires the taser. I think Rolfe shot not because he was in fear for his life, but because his gun was in his hand.
I had a similar experience with a simulator once. It was not a deadly force situation but I shot the guy. I immediately knew I was wrong. Why did I do it? When the time came that I was forced to act the gun was in my hand. Had it been a baton I would have smacked him with it.
My point- before Brooks shot the taser Rolfe had already escalated to lethal force when he drew the gun. Rolfe reacted to the taser with what was available. This all happens in seconds, but at some point Rolfe will have to explain why he transitioned to lethal force prior to the taser being pointed at him, rather than maintaining 20 feet or so, or whatever alternative.

adjusterjack said:
I haven't seen anything online about exactly when the shots were fired but if they were fired during that two second interval I could see a self defense issue.
Click to expand...

Granted, it happened quickly.
Rolfe has a taser in one hand and draws his gun with the other. A moment later Brooks fires the taser high and wide but continues fleeing. Rolfe drugs his trader, stops at the car, and fires three times. Rolfe already has policy issues by firing at a running suspect and having both taser and firearm drawn at the same time- a lot of explaining to do that doesn't really give him benefit of the doubt.
Beyond that we then have the bystanders in the line of fire which is another mess.

I think it was the NYT that had an article with slo-mo and highlights from the Wendys video that show you the transition of weapons, taser flash, and shots fired.

It is a tough consequence on both sides for something that happens so fast, but this is why the training is so extensive. If in doubt don't shoot, but if you do you had better be sure.
 
mightymoose said:
I have recently found myself at odds with colleagues over the current issue in Atlanta and have to say the experience is very disconcerting.
The typical law enforcement response is to rally around their own, and the vast majority of those I know in the profession are in support of the shooting that took place and the officer"s walkout response to criminal charges.
For the life of me, I can not see how anyone can review the information that is available (complete or not) and feel that officer reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury, and that the shooting of a man in his back as he ran away is justifiable. It truly makes me fear for the future of law enforcement that more police are not outraged and don't easily recognize excessive force. Instead they try to justify it as a matter of "officer safety".
With all the training police receive regarding use of force this incident should be easily flagged as at least being questionable- but no. Emotions are high and hardly anyone I know will speak up against what appears to be obvious unreasonable and excessive force. It is strong support for the officer all around. Outnumbered as I am, it makes me wonder if it is me that is missing something, but all my training and experience and education leads me to the opposite conclusion.
I don't think the officer intended to kill the man, but was caught up in the moment and reacted without thinking- and he likely only shot because he already had his gun in his hand. In flight the entire time, despite the taser being fired and widely missing, there is just no way to say the officer reasonably feared imminent death or injury from a man who was running away as fast as he could.
Good people with good intentions can make bad decisions that come with bad consequences. Regardless of the outcome of the primary charge, it seems they have him easily on the assault of the passengers in the vehicle caught in the line of fire and the lesser offenses. Time will tell what a jury will do, but I suspect he does some time. This didn't make him a political victim. It makes him responsible for his actions.
As for the officers refusing to work I think their decision is shameful. They violate public trust and dishonor their oaths to serve those communities. When times are tough they still need to get the job done. They are being selfish and acting as if they deserve special treatment, that they can't possibly do wrong because they are police. Their job is hard so they should be given special considerations. This is an attitude that must be extinguished.
Police are subject to the same judicial system as those who they arrest. They need to let the matter run its course and respect the outcome even if they disagree- just as countless others do every day.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with you. How scary is that MM?? ;)
 
mightymoose said:
I suspect this is what the rest of the Atlanta officers fear and are protesting over.
I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

I predict ANY jury empaneled with open minded people will return a not guilty verdict pertaining to any charge resulting in the demise of the deceased.

However, all defendants are innocent until a jury convicts.
 
No way this was self defense. The man was running away and shot in the back. Twice. Then, while on the ground dying, one of the officers kick him and stepped/stood on his neck.
 
justblue said:
No way this was self defense. The man was running away and shot in the back. Twice. Then, while on the ground dying, one of the officers kick him and stepped/stood on his neck.
Click to expand...

Until we see the shot placement we can't determine if the shots in the back was done as he ran away or was running while taking aim.. I've seen a guys running away with a firearm that would light your butt up with their shot placement. It is always hard to decide what a person feels during something like this. Every man fears are different...… I do think law enforcement needs to have better ROE in place and better training under stressful situations.
 
Disabled Vet said:
Until we see the shot placement we can't determine if the shots in the back was done as he ran away or was running while taking aim.. I've seen a guys running away with a firearm that would light your butt up with their shot placement. It is always hard to decide what a person feels during something like this. Every man fears are different...… I do think law enforcement needs to have better ROE in place and better training under stressful situations.
Click to expand...
Taking aim with what? The taser that had no charge in it?? He was not a danger to the officers or the public when he was shot...that is why the officers were charged.

The officer that was the shooter should not have been on the force at the time of the shooting. He was reprimanded in '17 for lying during another shooting. He lied to protect another officer who shot a black man. He should have been fired at that time. Perhaps if he had been Rayshard Brooks would be alive today.
 
It would NOT be very hard to mistake a taser from a handgun even during the day much less at night. The fact that a flashlight is on it means nothing. The Glock on my bedside table has such a light. And even if he knew the Brooks had a stolen taser what he didn't know is if that was the only weapon Brooks had.

It isn't hard to run, then turn around, draw, and around place 2 shots on target in 2 seconds.

What I haven't heard is if shooting in such a scenario is even against department policy. They had to have contemplated the fact that a subject may take a taser run and shoot it at the officer.

Here's the law the officer is charged under.

O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 (2010)
16-5-1. Murder; felony murder

(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.
Click to expand...

So there has to be either Express malice or Implied malice. Unless the officer talked about shooting him a black man that night or previously that is going to close to impossible to prove. Implied malice can be defended against by simply zapping someone with a taser in front of the jury.

Then there is the aggravated assault charge for the 3rd round that missed and hit a car. All you need is one person on the jury that understands anything about shooting. That shouldn't be hard in Georgia.
 
Perhaps if Mr. Brooks would have made better choices as well. Lets say they allowed him to escape being drunk. He then got into another auto and crashed into a van with a family. It is easy to be a lazyboy quarterback. I wasn't there to make the choices these people did. I don't think we have heard all the facts as well. We do know this fact. Mr. Brooks was told to put his hands behind his back he was under arrest. HE made the choice to fight the officer and run.... If he would have just complied with the officer. He would be alive today.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top