Atlanta

[Tax Counsel]

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.

Then you live in a very different world than I do, my friend. An open minded nonracist jury I think would be very troubled by what occurred. While the officers might avoid conviction on the most serious charges, IMO the jury fails in its duty if it outright acquits them based on what we know so far. Of course, additional evidence could change things.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Then you live in a very different world than I do, my friend. An open minded nonracist jury I think would be very troubled by what occurred. While the officers might avoid conviction on the most serious charges, IMO the jury fails in its duty if it outright acquits them based on what we know so far. Of course, additional evidence could change things.

From what I understand is that the officer has only been charged with two counts. The Felony Murder charge and an a count of an aggravated assault charge for the shot that missed. It is my thinking that if the officer isn't guilty of the murder charge he certainly isn't guilty of the assault charge for a shot that missed.

P.S. You don't have to be racist to be pro-cop and pro-law and order.

 

[Tax Counsel]

P.S. You don't have to be racist to be pro-cop and pro-law and order.

No, you don't. But the deep south, including Georgia, has a long history of letting off Whites for violence against Blacks due to racism. I hope that is not what will happen should this go to trial.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

No, you don't. But the deep south, including Georgia, has a long history of letting off Whites for violence against Blacks due to racism. I hope that is not what will happen should this go to trial.

The South also has a long history of really good fried chicken but it is getting harder and harder to find commercially.

My point was when you wrote this...

An open minded nonracist jury I think would be very troubled by what occurred.

...it sounds like you are saying if there isn't a conviction then the jury must be racist.

 

[Tax Counsel]

...it sounds like you are saying if there isn't a conviction then the jury must be racist.

No, I meant what I said — the jury should be very troubled by what occurred. Whether they find that there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter. And it won't be possible to guess if racism motivated the jury until the evidence is presented in court. The stronger the state's case, the more an acquittal will be interpreted as being due to racism. I certainly won't dismiss racism as a possible factor in the outcome. The South still has plenty of racists.

 

[mightymoose]

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..

According to the DA both shots struck in the back, one penetrating the heart. Brooks had his back to the officer.
I've been hung up on the fact that he was drawing his gun before Brooks turned to shoot the taser. In his mind, Rolfe had already decided to escalate to deadly force.

I try to picture myself in the situation and I like to think that knowing the suspect was drunk and had a taser I would have just remained 20 feet back and waited for him to fall down. He wasn't likely going to run far. It's easy to second guess, but I just don't see the need for deadly force.
There is the possibility Rolfe was angry too. He lost control of his arrestee, he was punched in the face, and his man was getting away. Contempt of cop. How dare you. Etc , etc...

 

[mightymoose]

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 taser still had a charge, it was just unable to fire anymore darts. It could still be used in direct contact, but obviously that was not attempted. It is debatable that Rolfe knew the taser had been fired twice, but even so, with the suspect fleeing rather than advancing, and with his partner right behind him, any fear of the taser or being attacked and disarmed seems unreasonable. All Rolfe had to do was keep his distance.
Rolfe reacted to the flash and pop of the taser as if it was a firearm, instinctive and reflexive, but a deadly error.

 

[mightymoose]

He was reprimanded in '17 for lying during another shooting.

That's a juicy detail. I have heard about previous discipline but not the details. Where did you get that info?

 

[mightymoose]

It would NOT be very hard to mistake a taser from a handgun even during the day much less at night

In this case it would be very difficult. They had just struggled on the ground with it and it had been fired. The officers were shouting to let go of the taser.... There was no doubt that it was a taser that was taken. They had previously patted him down and stood around with him for 40 minutes with no fear of weapons. There was nothing other than a taser to be concerned about.
The taser is a bright color and identical to the one in Rolfe's own hand. Having been fired once already there were likely copper wires trailing from it as he ran.
Yes, firearms can have lights too but require more familiarity with the weapon as where the taser is automatic.
Under the circumstances I don't see how it is reasonable that Rolfe believed Brooks had anything other than the taser that had just been taken from Branson.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

No, I meant what I said — the jury should be very troubled by what occurred. Whether they find that there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter. And it won't be possible to guess if racism motivated the jury until the evidence is presented in court. The stronger the state's case, the more an acquittal will be interpreted as being due to racism. I certainly won't dismiss racism as a possible factor in the outcome.

If the DA picks the right jury it could all be a factor in a conviction.

The South still has plenty of racists.

As does the North. Let's remember what sparked all of this.

 

[mightymoose]

What I haven't heard is if shooting in such a scenario is even against department policy.

Apparently they are trained that a taser taken from an officer and used against him can incapacitate him and allow a firearm to be taken and used. That is reasonable but has to be kept in context with the circumstances.
It is not nearly as reasonable of a fear that would happen when the suspect is running away from you and your partner is right behind you to stop any such attack.
Regardless of the taser being taken and fired, and regardless of that training, the officer still must establish a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. I don't see how he does that with Brooks on fill flight the entire time.

 

[justblue]

The South still has plenty of racists.

But, apparently, sadly lacking in good fried chicken.

 

[Tax Counsel]

As does the North. Let's remember what sparked all of this.

Yes, the North and West have their share of racists, too. But the deep South seems to have racism still more indelibly imprinted on its culture than the rest of the country. I was struck in my time visiting the deep South just how much more obvious the racism was.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Apparently they are trained that a taser taken from an officer and used against him can incapacitate him and allow a firearm to be taken and used. That is reasonable but has to be kept in context with the circumstances.
It is not nearly as reasonable of a fear that would happen when the suspect is running away from you and your partner is right behind you to stop any such attack.
Regardless of the taser being taken and fired, and regardless of that training, the officer still must establish a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. I don't see how he does that with Brooks on fill flight the entire time.

The only thing you can count on to both keep you alive and "doing the right thing" is to rely on training. An officer doesn't have hours or days to think about it they have fractions of a second.

Can this cause a bad result from time to time? Of course which is why in most cases when a bad result is the outcome of an officer following the procedure they aren't criminally tried or even disciplined.

 

[mightymoose]

Here's the law the officer is charged under.

Note section (c) in the statute. It is my understanding that the angle they are taking is that Rolfe committed an aggravated assault (a felony) which resulted in death. Malice aforethought is not required by this route.
I suspect it is more likely that if convicted it would be a lesser manslaughter offense.

 

[justblue]

That's a juicy detail. I have heard about previous discipline but not the details. Where did you get that info?

OhioGAL ...she is a vetted attorney on another site.

 

[mightymoose]

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.

Possibly. I know in my own training it is heavily emphasized to be aware of what is down range exactly for this reason. The officer is responsible for every one of those bullets, wherever they land, regardless of intent.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Note section (c) in the statute. It is my understanding that the angle they are taking is that Rolfe committed an aggravated assault (a felony) which resulted in death. Malice aforethought is not required by this route.
I suspect it is more likely that if convicted it would be a lesser manslaughter offense.

From what I heard the aggravated assault was based on the round that was a miss. If they are passing the felony assault on that they should just go ahead and drop the charges because there is no way in hell that is going to fly.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Possibly. I know in my own training it is heavily emphasized to be aware of what is down range exactly for this reason. The officer is responsible for every one of those bullets, wherever they land, regardless of intent.

Yes the officer is. But I've never heard of an officer being charged for a missed shot that wasn't negligent and nothing I've heard makes me believe this shot was negligent.

If such was the case all officers that miss a shot during qualification should be disqualified.

 

[mightymoose]

Lets say they allowed him to escape being drunk. He then got into another auto and crashed into a van with a family.

While that would be tragic, that would be quite different than simply releasing him and allowing him to leave. Many people are unrealistically arguing that they should have just let him sleep it off or walk home. The officers would certainly have liability if something happened later. I would expect that if an arrestee escapes that liability is removed.