GA - Rayshard Brooks, 27, fatally shot in Wendy’s car park, Atlanta, 12 Jun 2020 *officer charged*

[squareandrabbet]

So if you steal a cops taser, you could taze the cop and get his gun. You will be shot therefore, if you do that.

yes; IIRC you cannot do either (reach for cops’ taser OR reach for cops’ gun) because traditionally (drumroll)... when suspects/detainees go for the cop’s weapons, they are intending to use them against the cops. Should the cops then cheerfully allow this, when the overwhelming majority of instances is a ‘shoot or be shot’ situation?

 

[katydid23]

Of course they are supposed to do their job, but they are limited by the rule of law like everyone else. They are not allowed to use lethal force unless they are facing imminent lethal force themselves. There are a lot of questions as to whether or not this was a justified shooting. Forming an opinion before all the facts are examined or even fully known is simply being dishonest with yourself.

That bolded statement, is not true.

"Agencies often have policies limiting the force used to be equal or one step higher on the continuum to the force they are opposing."



Most law enforcement agencies establish a use of force continuum starting with simple presence through deadly force. With this model, officers attempt to control subjects and situations with the minimum force necessary. Agencies often have policies limiting the force used to be equal or one step higher on the continuum to the force they are opposing.
Deadly force - Wikipedia


Can police use deadly force on a fleeing suspect?
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead... ... Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.


In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. The use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public. Common law allowed officers to use any force necessary to effect a felony arrest but this was narrowed in the Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 when the U.S. Supreme Court said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." [1]

In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene—and its calculus must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.[1]

Most law enforcement agencies establish a use of force continuum starting with simple presence through deadly force. With this model, officers attempt to control subjects and situations with the minimum force necessary. Agencies often have policies limiting the force used to be equal or one step higher on the continuum to the force they are opposing.

 

[Keefer]

It seems to me at least, that Mr Brooks sadly never learned a valuable lesson in life.....Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Agree, the officer has been fired and will likely be charged with involuntary manslaughter

yes; IIRC you cannot do either (reach for cops’ taser OR reach for cops’ gun) because traditionally (drumroll)... when suspects/detainees go for the cop’s weapons, they are intending to use them against the cops. Should the cops then cheerfully allow this, when the overwhelming majority of instances is a ‘shoot or be shot’ situation?

every situation is different. You have to look at the totality of the facts not cherry pick.

 

[katydid23]

He was shot twice in the back while running away after attempting to use a non lethal weapon.

Can police use deadly force on a fleeing suspect?

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead... ...
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.


And besides the above rule, the video shows that the cop probably began shooting when the perp was facing him and shooting the taser. So he wasn't intending to shoot him in the back, the perp turned back before the bullets hit.

 

[katydid23]

Agree, the officer has been fired and will likely be charged with involuntary manslaughter

I doubt he will be charged. I really hope not because we will lose a lot of good officers, en masse, if that happens.

 

[Simply Southern]

4th amendment to the constitution

They searched him, with HIS consent, before the field sobriety test. LE had probable cause, they smelled alcohol, he was asleep at the wheel, TWICE, and had difficulty with the field test. At times, he changed the type of drink he had, and didn't know what street or city he was in.

Please, help me understand the violation.

This one....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Keefer]

How should law enforcement change?

Should LE not protect the innocent? Those driving on the same road as an impaired person could loose their life.

LE are employed to uphold the laws of our land and protect the innocent. Some choose to make the choice to resist arrest and assault an officer, they risk the consequences which could risk their life.

Well, they can start by outlawing the choke hold. Secondly, they can work at making much better decisions as far as lethal force. In this instance, they knew who Mr. Brooks was and if they could not restrain him and he got away, they could issue a warrant for his arrest. Simply shooting everyone who tries to escape the police is folly.

 

[Angela_Beckett]

I’m so sad for the families or anyone involved in this tragedy. So much unnecessary sorrow and loss

 

[Keefer]

They searched him, with HIS consent, before the field sobriety test. LE had probable cause, they smelled alcohol, he was asleep at the wheel, TWICE, and had difficulty with the field test. At times, he changed the type of drink he had, and didn't know what street or city he was in.

Please, help me understand the violation.

This one....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this instance it pertains to lethal force

 

[katydid23]

Agree, the officer has been fired and will likely be charged with involuntary manslaughter

If they charge him with manslaughter, it will be a huge blow to all of the officers. It really will.

This suspect suddenly turned combative, during a lawful arrest. And he was the one that became violent, and attacked both officers, stealing a weapon from their holster, pointing it at them, while they were trying to use non lethal force to stop him.

The officers have a duty to protect the local citizens. A fleeing felon, who is drunk and armed with a stolen taser is a dangerous thing. The cop had a split second decision to make. This perp is coming at him with a taser and could get away and continue his rampage.

If they put him on trial, for making the decision to stop this drunk violent perp from continuing , then this will be a much worse society.

Many cops will quit in large numbers. Others will be hamstrung and not feel able to really do their jobs.

We send cops to these difficult situations, and then when attacked by a large, drunk, angry felon, they are not supposed to defend themselves?

 

[Rocco]

Atlanta shooting: Rayshard Brooks was shot twice in the back, autopsy report says

The Fulton County District Attorney criticized the police officers' handling of the fatal shooting and said that a decision on whether to bring charges could come around Wednesday.

"(Brooks) did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone, and so the fact that it would escalate to his death just seems unreasonable," DA Paul Howard said today.

"It just seems like this is not the kind of conversation and incident that should have led to someone's death."

Howard said the possible charges could include murder, felony murder or involuntary manslaughter.

"Specifically, (the question is if) Officer Rolfe, whether or not he felt that Mr. Brooks, at the time, presented imminent harm of death or some serious physical injury. Or the alternative is whether or not he fired the shot simply to capture him or some other reason," Howard said. "If that shot was fired for some reason other than to save that officer's life or to prevent injury to him or others, then that shooting is not justified under the law."

"(Brooks) did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone, and so the fact that it would escalate to his death just seems unreasonable," DA Paul Howard said today.''

He attacked a cop, took his taser, and then pointed it at him. And that's not any kind of a threat?

Cops are expected to stand there like dummies and let people spit on them, scream profanities at them, and throw bottles filled with concrete at them. And now they're expected to stand there like a dummy and let a criminal shoot them with a taser.

Or else.

The district attorney needs to take off his 3 piece suit and get out there on the streets and do what these cops do for a week and let us know how that goes.

 

[Keefer]

Cases like this keep happening, And in case you haven't noticed the police are being held to account if not here than in court where it matters...and continuing to do the same thing that continues to fail is not real smart. Goodnight

 

[katydid23]

In this instance it pertains to lethal force

Cops have the legal right to use lethal force on a dangerous, fleeing felon.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

 

[katydid23]

Cases like this keep happening, And in case you haven't noticed the police are being held to account if not here than in court where it matters...and continuing to do the same thing that continues to fail is not real smart. Goodnight

Why do cases like this keep happening?

Is it the cops fault? Did they do anything to make this go sideways?

They were polite, respectful, and did their jobs. They were making a LAWFUL arrest.

How is this their fault? Doesn't this long time criminal have any accountability here? He has been convicted for violent offences several times. he knew exactly what he was doing.

How can you say the cops fell short? This man made his own poor decisions to escalate this peaceful interaction into a physical combative situation. He created the violent situation which ended in his death.

 

[squareandrabbet]

The rioters and looters don't give a turd about the cause.

true, but they (Protestors) are providing camouflage for the cause.

I don’t think it’s wholly kosher to say ‘Well, the reason these people are even here is because our peaceful protest is letting them fly under the radar; but no, that’s nothing to do with us because we don’t ‘condone’ it.’ That’s in fact fairly disingenuous.

If this goes to court, IMO there is substantial evidence that the police acted appropriately. But, in the meantime we must suffer through more riots and such. Mike Brown, the "gentle giant" from Ferguson tried to take officers gun away too. Again, as Jim Croce sang, " don't spit into the wind"!

yes, another problem is that we probably won’t hear a defense for months, because the honorable folks are waiting to try it in a court of law.

But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? Control the narrative with any sort of conversational means while others are playing by the rules? Is the Brooks family lawyer attempting to try the case in the media ahead of time?

 

[SugarQueen]

Well, they can start by outlawing the choke hold. Secondly, they can work at making much better decisions as far as lethal force. In this instance, they knew who Mr. Brooks was and if they could not restrain him and he got away, they could issue a warrant for his arrest. Simply shooting everyone who tries to escape the police is folly.

Issue a warrant?? So your idea is they should have just let a stinking drunk, violent person, with a tazer belonging to LE go off into the public??? Just, like, let him go? And go on their merry way?? That might be one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard!!

 

[Trident]

I’m so sad for the families or anyone involved in this tragedy. So much unnecessary sorrow and loss

I'm also sad and sorry Brooks died. I watched the video, I did not want him to die. But even so for every action there is a reaction and every choice we make has an impact on our lives, for good or ill. I'm sorry Brooks made the choices he did, from taking that first drink to shooting a taser at the officer and running again. I didn't want him to die, but for some reason he made terrible choices and reaped the consequences. Now a lot of other people are paying the price for his stupidity.

Yes, it is sad and could have been avoided. I believe there is a lesson here for all of us.

MY OPINION ONLY

 

[Simply Southern]

Can police use deadly force on a fleeing suspect?

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead... ...
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.


And besides the above rule, the video shows that the cop probably began shooting when the perp was facing him and shooting the taser. So he wasn't intending to shoot him in the back, the perp turned back before the bullets hit.

Yes, I went back and watched a few more times.

The man had a dangerous weapon, a police officers tazer. He clearly didn't pass the breathalyzer test.

How do we know he wouldn't use the tazer on someone or come back and drive the car intoxicated?

 

[katydid23]

I would qualify that as a guess not a fact unless you can cite your source? You could be right of course.

 

[Simply Southern]

Well, they can start by outlawing the choke hold. Secondly, they can work at making much better decisions as far as lethal force. In this instance, they knew who Mr. Brooks was and if they could not restrain him and he got away, they could issue a warrant for his arrest. Simply shooting everyone who tries to escape the police is folly.

Tazers are considered a weapon, under GA law. Once Mr Brooks chose to take the tazer and fire at the officer, they had to secure the weapon.

They couldn't leave an intoxicated man on the loose with a tazer.