Atlanta

PayrollHRGuy said:
I think the days of using that argument are gone.
Click to expand...

Especially when dealing with someone who is intoxicated or under the influence.
Also, for what it's worth, he apparently was not told he was under arrest. Although that would be obvious to most people, who knows what was going on in his mind in his intoxicated state.
 
mightymoose said:
Especially when dealing with someone who is intoxicated or under the influence.
Also, for what it's worth, he apparently was not told he was under arrest. Although that would be obvious to most people, who knows what was going on in his mind in his intoxicated state.
Click to expand...

From what I have heard he was also on either probation or parole. So my guess is he was thinking about going to jail for a while.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are saying the use of force was unreasonable/unjustified, which makes each shot fired an aggravated assault. The ones that struck Brooks resulted in death and became felony murder. The one that struck the vehicle remained aggravated assault.
I don't know how strong the argument for that is, but I do suspect a jury would be more likely to convict on a lesser offense.
 
mightymoose said:
They are saying the use of force was unreasonable/unjustified, which makes each shot fired an aggravated assault. The ones that struck Brooks resulted in death and became felony murder. The one that struck the vehicle remained aggravated assault.
I don't know how strong the argument for that is, but I do suspect a jury would be more likely to convict on a lesser offense.
Click to expand...

The problem is the circular logic. The miss is assault because the hits were illegal. There isn't a felony murder charge if the assault wasn't illegal.

That is assuming they are using the 3rd paragraph you mentioned is what they are basing the murder charge on.

And if the department policy was to use lethal force when attacked with a less than lethal weapon then all of this is 100% BS and being done for no other reason than a group of very angry citizens will riot if it is not and the officer should likely sue for malicious prosecution at some point in the future.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
So now you think the police should just let people escape so they don't have any liability for further wrongdoing?
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said. I just noted that the liability is different. A person escaping is different than letting them escape.

Sometimes, depending on the circumstances and the offense, letting someone run is an option. Pick them up at a later time.
This isn't one of those circumstances.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
The problem is the circular logic. The miss is assault because the hits were illegal. There isn't a felony murder charge if the assault wasn't illegal.
Click to expand...

That is the question for a jury to decide- was the shooting legal? If so most of the charges will go away. If not, there will be consequences.
It all hinges on the reasonable fear of imminent death or GBI as set out long ago in Tennessee v Garner.

PayrollHRGuy said:
And if the department policy was to use lethal force
Click to expand...

The APD policy on use of deadly force says it may only be used when:

"1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect's escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person."
 
justblue said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Not good for the officer if true. I've read he was reprimanded for a use of force issue. If he was caught lying then that certainly doesn't help him now. I haven't seen anything solid about the details of the reprimand though, and I wouldn't expect to until a trial.
 
[QUOTE="Tax Counsel, post: 307016, member: 123067"]The South still has plenty of racists. [/QUOTE]
I find the rest of the country has more covert and overt racism than the South.
 
KatDini said:
I find the rest of the country has more covert and overt racism than the South.
Click to expand...

That is not my observation. From my experiences in different parts of the country racism in North and West tends to be more subtle and less direct. In the South I saw more instances of blatant racism than I have seen anywhere else.
 
Some interesting stuff on the case. It seems the Georgia Bureau of Investigation whose job it is to investigate local police shootings and turn over their findings to the DA didn't even know that the charges were going to be filed and have not completed their investigation.


Meanwhile... The DA seemed to have been lying when he sad the other officer was going to be a state's witness.

Atlanta officer says not 'state's witness' in Rayshard Brooks case, contradicting prosecutor

.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
DA didn't even know that the charges were going to be filed and have not completed their investigation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a second. This is just politics.
The DA announced well in advance that the decision on charges would be decided and announced on Wednesday, and the time of the press conference was announced in advance too. GBI may not have been formally notified or consulted, but they knew.
If I knew, the GBI certainly knew.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top